Do you mean understanding of randomness? Probability is just a chance of something happening. It takes the form of whatever is there. Randomness, however, is assumed is a lot of places that it is not there!
That would be an interesting one. If so, I imagine it might be different from language to language just based on how different languages potentially utilize letters. Very interesting thought though!
Why, you ask, is it called Benford’s Law when it was discovered earlier by someone else? Stigler’s Law of Eponymy: “No discovery or invention is named after its first discoverer.” In 1983 statistician-historian Stephen Stigler published a paper worthy of Arthur Conan Doyle titled “Who Discovered Bayes’ Theorem?” Since Bayesian analysis, which is at the heart of inductive reasoning, is rapidly becoming the dominant statistical paradigm of the 21st century, this is of considerable scientific interest. Stigler suggests that the Reverend Thomas Bayes (1702-1761) may NOT be the true originator of the theorem named after him. In a tour de force of statistical deduction (or maybe induction) he uses Bayes’ Theorem itself to produce 3 to 1 odds that the real author was Nicholas Saunderson, a blind mathematician who became the fourth Lucasian professor at Cambridge (Newton was the second). He does leave the door open to other possibilities by invoking Damon Runyon’s rule (nothing in life is more than 3 to 1) and Laplace’s principle of indifference (absent contradictory evidence, give equal weight to all possible outcomes).
Depends on what you mean. So you really shouldn't go too many digits into the number for this to still hold. However, the bigger the set of numbers the better since it covers more magnitudes of values!
This contradicts my understanding of probability.
Do you mean understanding of randomness? Probability is just a chance of something happening. It takes the form of whatever is there. Randomness, however, is assumed is a lot of places that it is not there!
Since you only make 5 mins video, why did you update so slow? Just kidding! Love your videos. They super concise and informative.
Hahahaha!
Its so true. They are only five minutes! ;-)
This is very interesting. I wonder if such a principle applies to letter-based data as well.
That would be an interesting one. If so, I imagine it might be different from language to language just based on how different languages potentially utilize letters. Very interesting thought though!
It does. It's a called "letterfrequency" and as @ariclabarr states, it depends on the language.
Benford's Law has been featured in a few films, but I cannot recall the titles right now, any ideas anyone?
A more recent one is The Accountant. Ben Affleck's character uses it to catch financial fraud!
Why, you ask, is it called Benford’s Law when it was discovered earlier by someone else? Stigler’s Law of Eponymy: “No discovery or invention is named after its first discoverer.” In 1983 statistician-historian Stephen Stigler published a paper worthy of Arthur Conan Doyle titled “Who Discovered Bayes’ Theorem?” Since Bayesian analysis, which is at the heart of inductive reasoning, is rapidly becoming the dominant statistical paradigm of the 21st century, this is of considerable scientific interest. Stigler suggests that the Reverend Thomas Bayes (1702-1761) may NOT be the true originator of the theorem named after him. In a tour de force of statistical deduction (or maybe induction) he uses Bayes’ Theorem itself to produce 3 to 1 odds that the real author was Nicholas Saunderson, a blind mathematician who became the fourth Lucasian professor at Cambridge (Newton was the second). He does leave the door open to other possibilities by invoking Damon Runyon’s rule (nothing in life is more than 3 to 1) and Laplace’s principle of indifference (absent contradictory evidence, give equal weight to all possible outcomes).
Is this apply to big numbers
Depends on what you mean. So you really shouldn't go too many digits into the number for this to still hold. However, the bigger the set of numbers the better since it covers more magnitudes of values!
Knocked it out of the park on this one