Timeline for How to re-mean a vector of probabilities, without having values beyond the [0, 1] bounds?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 29, 2024 at 21:50 | history | edited | jblood94 | CC BY-SA 4.0 | edited body |
| Nov 28, 2024 at 4:32 | comment | added | jblood94 | I get you. See the updated answer. The motivation behind the original answer was to point out that there is more than one way to accomplish the task. Also, I don't read the question as the OP asking for additive transformations--that was just one approach that the OP had (unsuccessfully) explored. | |
| Nov 28, 2024 at 4:26 | history | edited | jblood94 | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 123 characters in body |
| Nov 28, 2024 at 4:20 | history | edited | jblood94 | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 3049 characters in body |
| Nov 27, 2024 at 20:30 | comment | added | Sycorax♦ | Why would one prefer this method? What problem does it solve that isn’t solved by the other answer? Are there any disadvantages to using it? OP asks for transformations that look like adding a constant, which is not what this answer proposes, so the (subjective) claim that it’s “simpler” doesn’t seem like a relevant differentiation. | |
| Nov 27, 2024 at 20:12 | history | answered | jblood94 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |