Please explain what the two approaches are? The similarity and the difference between them. If possible examples as well
In: 0
The frequentist approach uses objective experience about how frequently an event is likely to occur, such as coin tosses, or the probability of a defective product on an assembly line. As the experience increases, the observed frequency is increasingly predictable (or its statistical properties are). Since it is based on observations, there is no room for opinions or gut feel.
This approach doesn’t work for many situations, however. Until one has accumulated sufficient experience from repeatable experiments, what number is to be assigned? Now, one may legitimately ask, what is the hurry to assign a number at all? Just wait it out until we have sufficient experience. But that does not help the insurance industry, for example. When SpaceX puts out a new rocket, what should it be insured for? The quote depends on how likely one “feels” it is going to crash, since there is no experience of it being launched.The insurer would have to go with a gut feel, based on the opinion of experts in the industry and come up with a number. Also, they need a way to tweak the number as more and more data emerges. Gamblers and insurers have always used Bayesian methods.
In the limit case (with sufficient experience or repeated randomised trials), the two should converge.
Latest Answers