Talk:Bayes' theorem

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bayes theorem assassin.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Interpretations Imageedit]

The assassin version of the image is literally an inferior visualization, and less intuitive. Specifically, it is less visually apparent that a character is “sus” or “an assassin” compared to having a beard, or wearing glasses. Quite frustrating that people are happy to argue for something that harms the transmissible of knowledge because it’s funny. Uwuo (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Uwuo: Though mental characteristics are harder to illustrate than physical ones, suspicion/guilt is a far better application of Bayes' theorem than beard/glasses, which has no causal relationship. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 00:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cmglee: Why do we need any visible attributes at all? Can't we just stick to plain numbers? What additional information do six face icons contain that a plain digit 6 doesn't? All the examples in the #Examples section work perfectly with digits, why can't #Interpretations do the same? --CiaPan (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I support the use of a visual representation. I support the present visual over the beards and glasses visual because beards and glasses have no connection whereas being suspicious and being an assassin are believably connected. However, I also support improving the current diagram and even replacing it with something else, so long as the two variables have some connection. In the current diagram, being an assassin is indicated by a dagger. That one makes sense. Being suspicious is indicated by what? Is it a bushy eyebrow? Maybe an eyepatch would be better. Constant314 (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Constant314. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jopy.12396 concludes that "distinctive eyebrows reveal narcissists' personality to others, providing a basic understanding of the mechanism through which people can identify narcissistic personality traits with potential application to daily life."

I've considered changing it to having some bloodstains (also starts with "B") I'll change it if you concur. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 19:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I like that. See a man with blood stains on him and it is more likely he is an assassin. Constant314 (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

What have i stumbled upon LuckTheWolf (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It does seem needlessly distracting (if the reader gets the Among Us reference) or confusing (if they don't) to have the assassins also wearing little visors and backpacks.

Maybe the suspicion marker could be a cloak, to go with the dagger? Belbury (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

While it may make no difference to you, some people are more visually minded and find it easier to understand or learn concepts when given concrete representations. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 19:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 23 August 2023edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 20:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

---

• Bayes' theorem → Bayes's theorem
• Stokes' theorem → Stokes's theorem
• Graves' disease → Graves's disease
• Fuchs' dystrophy → Fuchs's dystrophy
• War of Jenkins' Ear → War of Jenkins's Ear
• Shays' Rebellion → Shays's Rebellion

– Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Possessives is very clear: For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending in s, add 's. The guidance gives examples including Descartes's philosophy and Jesus's teachings, and almost no exceptions. The subject pages should be no exception to this style. It would be difficult to use a WP:COMMONNAME argument to the contrary because any published form would reflect the style guide of its source publication: an argument such as the majority of journals use Bayes' simply reflects that the majority of journals have style guides that differ from Wikipedia's. The Theorem of Bayes in Wikipedia's style is Bayes's theorem, and there are plenty of uses of Bayes's in the encyclopedia. This shouldn't be a discussion about the validity of MOS:'S, and any opposing comments need to say why the current form should be allowed to depart from the generally accepted standard of MOS. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Object to Stokes' theorem move as stated, because the target redirects to a different article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense for the two variations to lead to different articles. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, but that should be cleaned up first. Disambig, maybe? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

This seems tangential to the move discussion. That said, I'll give my opinion: The current target for Stokes's theorem is wrong. I can't think of any reason that search term should point to the "generalized" version. --Trovatore (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This has come up before in the previous RM discussion on this same article, and I will repeat what I said then. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the current title is clearly the common name based on the Google Ngrams. We aren't creating a possessive from scratch here. The possessive has already been created by reliable sources for this particular topic, and those are what we should follow. Also, as I point out above, historical figures such as Jesus and Archimedes have a possessive form commonly rendered as Jesus' or Archimedes' in English. (see Archimedes' screw and Jesus' interactions with women) I think Bayes qualifies as a historical figure, so his possessive form should be rendered as Bayes' under standard English grammar rules. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Rreagan007: An exception to MOS:'S for historical figures won't fly when the guidline specifically cites Jesus's and Descartes's. Article Jesus' interactions with women is clearly at the wrong title. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

MOS:'S is a guideline meant to reflect the current consensus. It appears from this discussion that it no longer accurately reflects consensus for article titles such as this, and so it should be updated to properly reflect this new consensus. And even if you reject that idea, at the very top is says that "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." So then this use case would just be an exception to the general guideline. And you are misrepresenting what the guideline says. It doesn't say to use "Jesus's", it says to try to reword to avoid using it: "...(Jesus's teachings), consider rewording (the teachings of Jesus)." And with the Descartes's example, the guideline is clearly contemplating instances where you are creating possessives from scratch, not instances such as this where the possessive form is the common name of a longstanding topic and therefore the article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. COMMONNAME should trump 'S. The proposer says this is just a matter of different house styles, but with respect, I believe the proposer is incorrect. The current form is the way the theorem is referred to in the wild. --Trovatore (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Clarification My opposition is specifically to renaming Bayes' theorem. I haven't thought much about the other proposals. There's a good chance I would come down the same way on Stokes' theorem, but there's a chance I wouldn't, and for the others I have no strong opinion. --Trovatore (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose moves. This is a COMMONNAME situation. We shouldn't force the 's where sources don't. O.N.R. ^(talk) 19:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose moves. Per COMMONNAME. Constant314 (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose move. Also oppose the assumption that that particular section of the MOS must be obeyed and not questioned, no matter how absurd its consequences. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with editors' conclusion at Talk:Generalized Stokes theorem/Archive_1#Requested_move_4_December_2018 (consensus not to move Stokes' theorem → Stokes's theorem) and Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018_December (endorsed). In particular I concur in the opinion of Amakuru, "The common name policy does apply to style decisions. Always has, always will", and of bradv, "While WP:MOS is important, it is still essentially descriptive and based on consensus. This discussion proved that the consensus for MOS:POSS is not quite as clear as it may seem, and probably needs to be revisited. Combine that with the WP:COMMONNAME argument, and the opposes have it." Adumbrativus (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• As far as I know s's is simply incorrect. Is this a common mistake in America? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  How would you even pronounce it? And there there is Hells Angels with no apostrophe. Constant314 (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  s's is common in INFORMAL (American?) English, especially when it helps to clear up ambiguity (If I say "Cactus' Needles" I'm referring to cactus needles in general, but if I say Cactus's needles I'm referring to the needles of a specific cactus)

  It reflects how in spoken (American?) English possessives are formed by adding an additional syllable /-sɪz/.

  Unsure whether this is a regional phenomenon. Thereppy (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:POSS. Pages that pre-date changes to guidelines are not magically immune to being brought into compliance with them later.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is not a prescriptive grammar school teaching guide. It should follow common usage, not prescribe common usage. If it is by far not the proposed form, then it is not the common usage. If it is a marginal call, then the prescribed usage can be used. If it is the common form, then use it. This concerns article titles; in the text of the articles you can apply the grammarian rules after the intro para. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. MOS:POSS is WP's general rule of thumb for possessives, but it doesn't trump titles or official names. I don't see why it should trump the WP:COMMONNAME of this event, which is absolutely Shays' Rebellion. Rockhead126 (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Common usage trumps grammar rules. For example, "I'm going good" is grammatically incorrect, but most people say it anyways. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:D973:95C0:1776:4340 (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree that COMMONNAME should take precedence. Also agree with previous statement that MOS should reflect consensus - seems like this may warrant putting exception wording into the MOS:'S to clarify this case.DLSteffens (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Distinction between 'Theorem' and 'Rule'edit]

The article currently starts "In probability theory and statistics, Bayes' theorem (alternatively Bayes' law or Bayes' rule), named after Thomas Bayes, describes the probability of an event," citing [1]. Yet the 'statement of theory' refers to 'events', not 'hypotheses'. Confusing!

To clarify matters I suggest that the 'theorem' is stated in terms of events and the 'rule' in terms of propositions, citing Keynes' A Treatise on Probability and referring to Bayesian inference for details. It might also be worth making some such distinction as ...

"Bayes' rule is logically valid for a Stochastic process with an unknown parameter that the hypotheses propose particular values for. It is also widely regarded as providing useful 'measures' even for subjects of interest (such as economies) that are not necessarily strictly stochastic."

(The History section and the Bayesian inference article may also need clarifying. For example how many readers will appreciate the significance of "Bayes' theorem "is to the theory of probability what the Pythagorean theorem is to geometry", calling to mind that Pythagoras thought the axioms of geometry to be 'self-evident truths'?)

Djmarsay (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Spelling of Bayes's Theoremedit]

While I understand the standard in practice for this (and numerous other mathematical) theorem(s) is to use only the apostrophe after the last 's' of the name (& omit the final possessive 's'), this does not make any grammatical sense.

The final s (after the apostrophe) is omitted in plural possessives, and only when they end in s due to the pluralisation. Bayes fits neither of these rubric, as (for starters), Thomas Bayes was a singular person.

Unless there is a rationale for using this spelling (apart from lazy convention), I would suggest fixing this oversight. Jp.nesseth (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not an oversight. It's been discussed, if not ad nauseam, at least ad tedium. You can bring it up again if you insist, but please look through the archives first. --Trovatore (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)