-2
$\begingroup$

Please reopen this question

Cosmology : Consecutive steps to get the posterior of parameters 1) determine fiducials, 2) Forecats with Fisher information 3) Validation with MCMC

that I estimate useful for all people working in a Beyasian/Fisher information/Markov-chain in a Physical context, especiallly in Astrophysical and Cosmological context.

This may help to better understand the different steps from the etablishment of a model and how to find the fiducial values of parameters up to the final estimation of parameters (posterior) to see the validity of the theoritical model.

As I said in comment, I think this would be a disgrace to not take into account all the methodology to apply.

If you could re-open it, I would be grateful.

Best regards

$\endgroup$
9
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ Your original question was closed explicitly pointing to Cross Validated as the site for questions about pure statistics. While I can see an argument that statistics should be on-topic here when explicitly about the application to experimental results (an argument you're not making here, you're simply calling the closure a "disgrace"!), can you explain why you think Physics is a better fit for this question than Cross Validated? $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind Mod
    Jun 2 at 20:54
  • $\begingroup$ … especially as Cross-Validated has a Fisher information tag… $\endgroup$ Jun 3 at 3:19
  • $\begingroup$ @ZeroTheHero . Please could you help me to remove this attempt of posting on cross-validated : stats.stackexchange.com/q/577100 . I can't even delete it. Thanks in advance. Regards $\endgroup$
    – ACat
    Jun 3 at 6:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ACat I'm not sure why you're so against this question being on Cross Validated. In any case, rejected migrations are automatically locked- they cannot be edited or deleted by anyone except a Cross Validated moderator. $\endgroup$
    – Chris Mod
    Jun 3 at 7:08
  • $\begingroup$ @Chris Could you ask please to a Cross-Validated moderator to delete my post. I am going to reformulate the question and post it on Cross-Validated with a better format. Thnaks in advance. $\endgroup$
    – ACat
    Jun 3 at 8:38
  • $\begingroup$ @ACat if you get this organized on Cross Validated please update here as I am interested by this topic. $\endgroup$ Jun 3 at 11:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @ACat It's probably better for you to contact them directly so they can respond to your request. You can contact the Cross Validated mods by flagging your post here. You might ask them to unlock it instead so you can edit it. Or just reorganize the post and repost it without worrying about the old version. $\endgroup$
    – Chris Mod
    Jun 4 at 0:58
  • $\begingroup$ @ZeroTheHero If you're still interested, you probably should just post the question yourself. ;) $\endgroup$
    – Chris Mod
    Jun 14 at 23:56
  • $\begingroup$ @Chris Oh dear! I see…. I may have to do just that… $\endgroup$ Jun 15 at 0:40

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

If you think your question requires some physics-specific knowledge to answer, you should make it more clear. As it is, I could pretend the first paragraph of your question doesn't exist and it wouldn't change how I answer the question. The first version didn't even mention physics at all.

Even though it arose in the context of physics, as far as I can tell the question you're actually asking is pure statistics. Not only is it not really on-topic here, it would probably get answered better by the exposure it would get on Cross Validated that it would not get here. And anyone else looking for an answer to this question is just as likely to find it there as they are here.

Separately, you have too many sub-questions. You should focus on one thing per question. Your migrated question was closed for not being focused enough.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .