
A History of Bayes' Theorem - jamesbritt
http://lesswrong.com/lw/774/a_history_of_bayes_theorem/
======
ajuc
Not really the point of the article, but it always unnerves me, when people
talk about Turing breaking Enigma, and not mention whole effort (
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptanalysis_of_the_Enigma> ).

Enigma was broken by Polish mathemathicians in 1938, then improved by Germans,
then broken again, Poles had given all their discoveries to France and to
Great Brittain, they also invented first "Bomba" to that worked mechanically.

It's complicated story, and these people deserve credit along with Turing. But
till 1970 it was classified information, and to this day everybody talks only
about Turing.

Maybe it's my nationalism bias at work, but I'd prefer if the whole story was
better known.

~~~
jgrahamc
I agree. Also this article only makes it worse. It claims that (a) no one was
working on Enigma before Turing and (b) Turing worked on it because he 'liked
solitude'. WTF? Given that total bollocks in that part of the article I have a
hard time reading the rest. Note that Bletchley Park does a very good job of
talking about the Polish contribution to the cryptanalytic effort with
examples of how the Polish attacks on Enigma were performed and a Polish
memorial and they have a special annual Polish day.

Also, if the author wanted to talk about Bayes Theorem and the WWII
cryptanalytic effort there's a much nicer example from the Japanese codes:
[http://blog.jgc.org/2010/07/bayes-bletchley-jn-25-and-
modern...](http://blog.jgc.org/2010/07/bayes-bletchley-jn-25-and-modern.html)

------
T_S_
If you find the conflict around frequentist and bayesian methods entertaining
check out Jaynes' Theory of Probability, which profiles lots of great
arguments and personality profiles. Also you might learn a few things about
maxent, statistical physics, and my favorite: the mind-projection fallacy.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
I can't find the book with that title, do you have a link or ISBN?
[http://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theory-Science-T-
Jaynes/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theory-Science-T-
Jaynes/dp/0521592712/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1) is the closest match but it does not
seem to match your description.

~~~
T_S_
Thanks and sorry--I misrecollected. The correct title is Probability Theory:
The Logic of Science.

~~~
jcarden
I've got a digital copy around here somewhere. Send me a message if you want.

~~~
sidman
Hi jcarden, i wouldnt mind a copy, where can i message you to.

Thanks !

~~~
woodson
I think it's not exactly the same as the book version, but the author's
original is available at <http://www-biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/prob.html>

~~~
ajays
Does anyone have a combined PDF? While I appreciate the author putting out the
PDF, separating the files out into individual chapters and figures makes it
harder to read in a sitting.

------
tylerneylon
It has always bothered me that Baye's theorem is a named result, instead of
just "the law of conditional probability," say. As soon as you formally define
conditional probability, it is obvious.

To be fair, though, I think he discovered it before probability theory was
formalized, and I can see how it may have been non-obvious at the time.
Sometimes the best progress makes challenging insights appear obvious in
hindsight - nice work, Laplace!

------
jorangreef
It's interesting that the Reverend Bayes was resisted for so long, and not on
objective grounds. We seem to have this tendency, even amongst the academic
elite, to not always have the most honest of mental apparatus, especially
where the matter at hand would require us to reverse position, or acknowledge
more our ignorance, than our ability.

------
chrismealy
Why is Bayes' theorem such a magnet for cranks? Is it because you make your
prior anything and pretend it's partially true?

~~~
russellallen
I don't know, but it does seem to be sometimes evangelised with more fervor
than I'm comfortable with. Us v Them is always a suspicious narrative.

Even in this article, stuff like:

 _Finally, in 1983 the US Air Force sponsored a review of NASA's estimates of
the probability of shuttle failure. NASA's estimate was 1 in 100,000. The
contractor used Bayes and estimated the odds of rocket booster failure at 1 in
35. In 1986, Challenger exploded._

makes me uneasy. The rhetoric is too clearly marked.

~~~
wolf550e
The "1 in 100,000" silliness was noticed by Feynman and has nothing to do with
Bayes, it was just PHB-thinking.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report#Role_o...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report#Role_of_Richard_Feynman)

------
equark
While we're on the top of Bayes, does any Berkeley grad have a copy of Michael
Jordan's forthcoming book?

------
JacobAldridge
For those (possibly a small number on HN) not aware - I first encountered
Bayes' Theorem via pg's articles on Spam -
<http://www.paulgraham.com/antispam.html>

------
olalonde
If you find the explanation too math heavy, this one might make more sense:
<http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=13156>

