<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Statistics is big-N logic?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://brenocon.com/blog/2007/03/statistics-is-big-n-logic/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://brenocon.com/blog/2007/03/statistics-is-big-n-logic/</link>
	<description>cognition, language, social systems; statistics, visualization, computation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2025 13:11:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Brendan</title>
		<link>http://brenocon.com/blog/2007/03/statistics-is-big-n-logic/#comment-21</link>
		<dc:creator>Brendan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2007 06:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.anyall.org/?p=61#comment-21</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;Oh, I&#039;m not sure it means much to &lt;em&gt;anyone&lt;/em&gt; besides me :)  Whenever there&#039;s an experiment or a study, &quot;N&quot; often refers to the total number of data points (number of subjects, trials, samples, etc.)  If you&#039;re building an intelligent system, there&#039;s a difference between having to support learning and inference over big datasets of many different things, or just small numbers of things.  There is quite a history of sophisticated logical systems that fail to scale to real world data, while ludicrously simple statistical systems can be surprisingly robust.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The idea is that logical formalisms -- boolean algebras, relations, functions, or frames and the like -- are good at describing complex structure and relations for small sets of things.  But if you have lots of things, you need to introduce abstractions involving counting -- averages, covariance, correlations, and the like.  The even more vague idea is that, given a nice axiomatic formalism, perhaps there is a way in which statistical notions result from having to consider learning/inference over large quantities of things.  &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;There are approaches to probability theory (Cox/Jaynes as I understand it) that demonstrate it as a consequence of adding induction/uncertainty to boolean logic... I was wondering if there might be something analogous for statistics.&lt;/p&gt;
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, I&#8217;m not sure it means much to <em>anyone</em> besides me :)  Whenever there&#8217;s an experiment or a study, &#8220;N&#8221; often refers to the total number of data points (number of subjects, trials, samples, etc.)  If you&#8217;re building an intelligent system, there&#8217;s a difference between having to support learning and inference over big datasets of many different things, or just small numbers of things.  There is quite a history of sophisticated logical systems that fail to scale to real world data, while ludicrously simple statistical systems can be surprisingly robust.</p>
<p>The idea is that logical formalisms &#8212; boolean algebras, relations, functions, or frames and the like &#8212; are good at describing complex structure and relations for small sets of things.  But if you have lots of things, you need to introduce abstractions involving counting &#8212; averages, covariance, correlations, and the like.  The even more vague idea is that, given a nice axiomatic formalism, perhaps there is a way in which statistical notions result from having to consider learning/inference over large quantities of things.  &lt;br/>&lt;br/>There are approaches to probability theory (Cox/Jaynes as I understand it) that demonstrate it as a consequence of adding induction/uncertainty to boolean logic&#8230; I was wondering if there might be something analogous for statistics.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shawn</title>
		<link>http://brenocon.com/blog/2007/03/statistics-is-big-n-logic/#comment-20</link>
		<dc:creator>Shawn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 04:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.anyall.org/?p=61#comment-20</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Could you explain what &quot;big N&quot; means to those of us who are statistically ignorant (e.g. me)? Your statement is amazingly opaque to me as is.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Could you explain what &#8220;big N&#8221; means to those of us who are statistically ignorant (e.g. me)? Your statement is amazingly opaque to me as is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
