Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 October 2008
In a previous paper (afterwards referred to as Paper I) tests have been given for the significance of some quantities found statistically. The results are given in the form P(q | θh)/P (˜ q|θh); here h denotes the previous knowledge and θ the experimental evidence used, while q is the hypothesis that all the variations outstanding can be attributed to accidental error or random variation, and ˜q the hypothesis that at least part of them is systematic. It has been supposed in the analysis that q and ˜q are equally probable on the information h; but if they are not, the only alteration is that the ratios evaluated now represent
If successive batches of relevant information are available the total effect on the probability of q can therefore be got by multiplying the values of
given by the investigations separately. In each case the assumption that q has prior probability ½ is really a practical working rule rather than a statement of fact.
* Jeffreys, , Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 31 (1935), 203–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
† Mind, 45 (1936), 324–33Google Scholar; Phil. Mag. 22 (1936) (in the press).
* Jeffreys, , Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 29 (1933), 83–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
† Scientific Inference, 51.
* Mind, 41 (1932), 421–3.Google Scholar
* Karl Pearson, Grammar of Science, Chapter v.
* de Graaff Hunter, J., Phil. Trans. A, 234 (1935), 407–28.Google Scholar
* Phil. Mag. 50 (1900), 167.
* Bull. Earthquake Research Inst. Tokyo, 11 (1933), 46–68.Google Scholar
† Monthly Notices Roy. Astr. Soc., Geoph. Suppl. 3 (1934), 233–8.Google Scholar