> Bayesian and Frequentist descriptions are mathematically equivalent
That's a very strong statement. Is the class of problems where they both approaches agree well understood (for some definition of agreement)? I was under the impression it was not. Perhaps the complete class theorem? Are the assumptions for that reasonable?
As I understand it, Cox's theorem suggests that freq/bayesian standpoints actually have functional consequences under certain assumptions, although whether those are the correct assumptions has been up for debate. Perhaps, too, there's a frequentist formulation, but this goes beyond my expertise.
That's a very strong statement. Is the class of problems where they both approaches agree well understood (for some definition of agreement)? I was under the impression it was not. Perhaps the complete class theorem? Are the assumptions for that reasonable?
As I understand it, Cox's theorem suggests that freq/bayesian standpoints actually have functional consequences under certain assumptions, although whether those are the correct assumptions has been up for debate. Perhaps, too, there's a frequentist formulation, but this goes beyond my expertise.
http://ksvanhorn.com/bayes/Papers/rcox.pdf