No-nonsense, completely on-point, and no focus on showing his own video and wasting time with useless information. Thanks a lot for explaining this concept so effectively.
Never change wrath of math, lots of math channels assume too many premises but you stand out cause you mention all the necessary knowledge and steps to get to the conclusion. Never change!
Thanks for watching and I am glad you found it extremely useful! I have the same question haha, most of my prob videos do better than that! But there are a lot of videos on Bayes's theorem, so it will take some time for this one to move up in the search rankings. You can help it out by sharing it if you know anyone who would find it useful!
What you're looking for goes in the numerator and the denominator. The only tricky bit is what is added to the denominator. That would be what you aren't looking for but has the same condition as what you are looking for. Example: looking for the probability of a true positive medical test. (true positive test)/( (true positive test) + (false positive test) )
Hey @Wrath of Math :) I deeply enjoyed watching your video(s) on Bayes's Theorem and some other probability videos that you have created. They are beyond awesome! very intuitively explained. Could you maybe produce such good ones on 'Statistics' topics? I miss a full playlist on 'Probability' & 'Statistics' topics in your channel as well. Keep it Up!
Hey wrath of math, I was wondering if you could do videos on Algebra 2 and more on geometry. my little sister would greatly appreciate your support! shes currently taking Aglebra 2 then geometry next year! your videos are AMAZING. thank you in advance
I recently started watching your videos, they are well explained. Could you please make videos on Portfolio Standard Deviation, Portfolio Variance, Portfolio Covariance and Portfolio Correlation? Thank you.
Thanks a lot! I'd love to make videos on those topics, but I can't say it'll be anytime soon. I'll be very busy this fall and winter, so I'm going to mostly stick to topics I've already begun teaching on this channel. But it will be fun to get to some more financial math, and corporate finance eventually!
CAN YOU DO THIS FOR ME (A patient visits a doctor suspecting that he may have lung cancer after suffering short of breath. The doctor knows besides lung cancer the patient might be suffering from tuberculosis. He also notes that smoking and exposure to pollution are key causes of both diseases but taking an x-ray would indicate that the patient has cancer or tuberculosis. Given that the patient P(patient is a smoker)=0.3 and P(patient was exposed to low pollution)= 0.9,. Using the Bayesian networks following all steps determine the accuracy of the output from the x-ray results )
- H’ is 2.08x more likely to E than H. - H’ is 1940.40x more likely to E’ than H. - E is 629.46x more likely to H than E’. - E’ is 1.48x more likely to H’ than E. - E given H is 47.50x more likely than E given H’. - E’ given H’ is 19.60x more likely than E’ given H.
What if the probability of A and B are not given but we're only given the product probability of both A and B? For instance, if the probability of playing soccer and rugby is 0.32 what is the probability of playing soccer?
Thank you very much for pointing out that error. I’m gonna hide my face in shame for the next few weeks. I can only hope to be forgiven for still having the error at the beginning of the video! I left the error in the description just once for the sake of other people who make the same error in searching it, though RU-vid probably knows exactly what such folks are looking for by now! It has been fixed in the thumbnail and title, thanks again!
@@WrathofMath Haha, RU-vid probably knows what I'm going to type before I type it. Conspiracy theories aside, if you value visibility over correctness, then I suggest spelling it Bayes' theorem. In my experience, that's the most common spelling, so I would speculate that's what most people would search for. Just speculation though, it may be that "bayes theorem" is the most common search.
Their search engine and website is pretty darn good at learning! You really notice when it’s completely wrong, but it usually isn’t haha! I like Bayes’s, because as far as I am aware putting an apostrophe by itself at the end of a word to make it possessive is only done for plurals. I’m no English expert, but I’m pretty sure them’s the rules! Admittedly, “Bayes’s” looks pretty ugly, and I am surprised to see that seemingly nobody else spells it that way. Perhaps I’ll change it in a few months and see if it has any effect.
@@WrathofMath Oops! I was wrong about the AP style guide! I just looked it up, and it says to add just an apostrophe for proper nouns ending in s. So if you follow AP then it's Bayes' and if you follow Chicago it's Bayes's. For Chicago, you are correct that singular proper nouns are given 's while plural are given just '. I've been confused about this for a while! Now I must also hide in shame!
@@mike_the_tutor1166 It is AP that should hide in shame. You have to have something distinct from something belonging to multiple people named Baye. If Johnny and Suzie Baye had created the theorem, then it would be Bayes' theorem, but it was just one dude named Bayes.
I'm still struggling... please can somehow help me with this example: 1. If someone is white and male, I can detect lies 80% of the time. 2. The chances of someone being white where I live is 81.7%. 3. The chances of someone being male where I live is 49%. What is the probability of me detecting a lie in these conditions? Please can you include it into the formula to help me apply it?
