Jonathan Tran on 1 Aug 2008 07:35:56 -0700


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: collective intelligence - bayes theorem help

  • From: "Jonathan Tran" <jonnytran@gmail.com>
  • To: philly-lambda@googlegroups.com
  • Subject: Re: collective intelligence - bayes theorem help
  • Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 10:35:48 -0400
  • Authentication-results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jonnytran@gmail.com designates 209.85.200.174 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jonnytran@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:x-sender:x-apparently-to :received:received:received-spf:authentication-results:received :dkim-signature:domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id :date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:reply-to :sender:precedence:x-google-loop:mailing-list:list-id:list-post :list-help:list-unsubscribe:x-beenthere; bh=rzvIAK4dTOyKbsRX8OLtHsyczlwxhzuyyzh3qqViO50=; b=v8bePYHLpjGIo3qFkQcig4JcEw7yXtdHkOSPps2yBs+ehA21EdG5E7e7NfYAlhz43M emJX7+1jG2E3ocTS3P+ZUoqQoyOXCOWPQ8gh2blBJz0M4B56uy1bCzMkCoKTR2G4LfnV iDg+j35psxlQYh1er6KPQU+Pc2EX/bBi6UJcw=
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=ZLDRMenp5c3iXHt6GAnfOa2jH+jvkhrKaomOcF8K7S8=; b=h3J05oyyumYiBr46D44uRFAsUQ+Kg1K6uwobkHfRjFJXRkN2wZ195AIGfN6aANdfx9 7g6Tf5tVCbTo1MR4b57JXMJnZ7XVxa8Xu5HEagnIi8NjJEUVrqaBc4KgTSSPwNuaMoJB oQr+2VyjJ7Lm6Hp45nVb1TyNzSkm8Oy1RHr5c=
  • Mailing-list: list philly-lambda@googlegroups.com; contact philly-lambda+owner@googlegroups.com
  • Reply-to: philly-lambda@googlegroups.com
  • Sender: philly-lambda@googlegroups.com

> Right, and what if in my example, state  doesn't impact the probability at
> all.  If belonging to Philly lambda is the key determining factor then
> taking state into account only throws us out of whack.

Are you saying you flat out _know_ that state doesn't impact the
probability?  ... as in, you're making that simplification?  Or are
you asking, "What if the state doesn't really matter?  How will that
affect the calculation?"

Because I was going to say that, as Gabriel pointed out, state and
group are not necessarily independent.  ...in which case, your
assumption is incorrect.

P(B and C) = P(B)*P(C) if B and C are independent.
But P(B and C) is not generally equal to P(B)*P(C)

(This is true of any B, C, not just yours.)

Similarly,
P(A|B and C) is not generally equal to P(A|B)*P(A|C).

If you want to put attributes together like that, you literally have
to go through your dataset and recompute the probability of following
a person given each combination of attributes, since (I'm guessing)
the attributes are not independent.  Someone might be more likely to
be in Philly Lambda if they live in NJ, as opposed to FL, and so P(B
and C) will be different than P(B)*P(C).  (But then again, maybe you
don't care about people living outside of driving range from Philly
Lambda, so as a simplification, you might say they're independent.)