Baye's Theorem: Cut it out!

There is this big crowd of people who are desperately trying to to be a part of community that knows the answer to: "Why did that Bayesian traveler didn't crossed the road?"

To them it looks like the world is divide into two parts: Smart-ass people who knows what Bayes is all about; and they themselves!

To all my friends on the other side, here's a chance to grasp Bayes in most intuitive way (I assume you know basic probability stuff)!

The Problem:
(Courtesy: http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes)

1% of women at age forty who participate in routine screening have breast cancer. 80% of women with breast cancer will get positive mammographies. 9.6% of women without breast cancer will also get positive mammographies. A woman in this age group had a positive mammography in a routine screening. What is the probability that she actually has breast cancer?


Variables:

Lets assign the good old variables to the events we have in the problem:
A: People with cancer
B: People with positive mamographies

Just to make the conventions clear:
P(A): Probability that a person has cancer
P(B): Probability that person will get a positive mamography

Note: P(A|B) in general means probability of A, given that B happens!
So,
P(A|B): Probability that a person has cancer, given he got a positive mamography
P(B|A): Probability that person gets a positive mamography, given he has cancer (i feel sad for him though)

That's a lot of dumb variables!!!
Lets move to interesting things now...

What we know from the problem:

P(A) = 1%
P(B) = ??
P(B|A) = 80%
P(A|B) = ?? (This the real QUESTION)


Check-Point: If you are clear with everything till now, i guarantee you will understand Bayes theorem in just some minutes from now!!!

Breaking it down:

Finding P(B) (persons with positive mamographies is not difficult).
P(B) = Cancerians with positive mamographies + Non-Cancerians with positive mamographies

So, P(B) = 1%*80% + 9.6%*(1-1%) = 0.10304

Bayes in Action:
A person got positive mamography and we need to find the probability he actually has cancer. This would be simple:

Required Probability = People with cancer and positive mamography/People with positive mamography

Denominator is P(B). We already know that!

On to the numerator:
P(A)% (1%) people have cancer
Out of these P(B|A)% (0.10304*) people have positive mamographies

So,
People with cancer AND positive mamography = (Any Guesses???)
Yes, its 1% * 0.10304%!
=P(A)*P(B|A)

SO.

P(A|B) = P(A)*P(B|A)/P(B)

As simple as that!
That's what Bayes was trying to tell you...
I bet you did'nt knew it was this simple!!! :)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Alarm Clock Myth - How to wake up early

Image
Everyone wants to wake up early, and make good use of those extra early morning hours. But we fail all the time, even if we succeed, its one-off times. I thought its a good opportunity to seize and fix this problem with the existing alarm clocks. I started exploring the existing solutions out there and found there are quite many interesting stuff: A whole breed of biologically sync'd clocks who wake you up when you are least in sleep Hard to snooze alarm clocks which ask you to solve a difficult puzzle to snooze an annoying alarm tone Motivational messages to wake you up I gave all the existing products a lot of thought and why they don't quite work. Here is my conclusion: People don't really understand the real purpose of alarm clocks .   Here's the deal: Alarm clocks are not meant to wake you up. Yes, you read it right. Alarm clocks really are the mission-control, last resort plan to wake you up at the deadline time. You are supposed to get up on
Read more

Intelligent Passwords

I attempt and dare to solve the problem of password-stealing which occur primarily due to Social Engineering Hacks. Also, this adds another layer of protection over passwords and make passwords more secure and usable! The method exploits the fact that given a word to type, different people will type the word in different fashions. The speed of typing will be different and the typing-accent will vary. We now attach this typing-accent attribute to the password and make them more secure i.e. even if you tell your password to a third-person, he wont be able to authenticate himself as you. Also, this improves the usability of passwords. As pointed by Jakob Nielsen, un-masking the password would provide better usability. Passwords can now be unmasked as this method tries to cover for the social engineering hacks which are the clear threats to unmasking passwords. As a proof of concept, i provide a demo here . The demo is Javascript based, where you can set your password and then attempt to e
Read more

The little thing that makes me hate Android

Android is awesome. We found love in a hopeless place. It's the unix of mobile phones. But it is so fricking annoying when: It vibrates on shutdown Why? Why does it have to vibrate on shutdown?? My phone battery definitely dies everyday because battery-life sucks and I suck more since I am too lazy to keep my phone charged. Now, when battery gives up, phone shuts down silently and in the end it vibrates. I pull the phone out of my pocket to see what the vibration was about, click the Power Button and it starts booting up, just to shutdown again! You may call it a dark pattern/(insert a mumbo-jumbo here), I call it wtf. wtf.
Read more