it's a theory.

Now I want to talk about approximate inference by means of sampling.

I'm asking if it's possible.

He wins his arguments by logical reasoning.

This meant they must have been closer together in the past.

For every one of every two of these horses, there's one dog.

What data and observations did you filter in as a result of your beliefs, and why?

We don't care about the test result as much as we care about the fact whether we have cancer or not.

We're born problem solvers.

They are interested in abstract reasoning.

I have a theory, but the, uh...

There's the audience in rhetorical arguments.

Well, I do think there's a good framework for thinking.

Coming up with proper precondition, postcondition, and invariant can be a hard task.

On our fourth rung, a very crucial thing happens.

Do you have any theories as to what caused this?

A very consistent and form many beautiful framework.

For example, a network that's a linear string of variables,

You might have guess it correctly. It's the uniform distribution.

This one has no y at all in it.

And numbers in between give you the gray levels of uncertainty.

But, what is science?

The next technique for efficient inference is to maximize independence of variables.

You might have heard about Bayes Rule before.

If you answered 'Yes' for any of the above, give details.

The meaning of that program depends a lot on the local value of X.

Here's my argument. Does it work? Is it any good?

Y is either zero or one, but if you are using

I will not speculate as to what might have happened.

And those 2 variables in turn have an effect on whether the grass gets wet.

This proposition will be found on careful examination to express, in condensed form, the essential purport of the Theory, and to express in a few words all Mr. Darwin's meaning who, by a strange inversion of reasoning, seems to think Absolute Ignorance fully qualified to take the place of Absolute Wisdom in the achievements of creative skill.

But if you see a couple of examples and you see a pattern there you can often extrapolate and get to a kind of broader generalization.

And so the fallacy that we need this resource and we can actually make it in a time frame that is meaningful is not possible.

Generally I think there are what I mean by that is, boil things down to their fundamental truths and reason up from there, as opposed to reasoning by analogy.

A kind of inference where we are trying to say, what's the most likely explanation?

I call it an inevitable conclusion based on reprehensible process of reasoning.

So this unit is a tough one.

You'll get your reference. Into bed now.

Well, let's go through it.

But thinking is really very straightforward it's just sort of some kind of logical reasoning, or something.

Eventually, I was able to deduce most of their huge logical alphabet.

I'm unable to deduce without a firsthand examination.

Imagine you're learning to play tennis and you want to decide where the ball is going to bounce as it comes over the net towards you.

If you compare how Obama did against how John Kerry had done four years earlier

I'm going around the world giving talks about Darwin, and usually what I'm talking about is Darwin's strange inversion of reasoning.