(ML 13.8) Conditional independence in graphical models - basic examples (part 1)

[@Aditya-ne4lk]

thanks for the rigorous mathematical treatment. i noticed that this video was released in 2011, way ahead of its time for the content it packs!

[@shanefortworth]

"that set off fire alarm...that was Christmas day....Merry Christmas..." THAT HAD ME ROLLING! thank you for the vid! I am studying cond. indep. in econometric models and this greatly helps!

[@giovangonzales6862]

@mathematicamonk You're a great teacher!!! I love you're style. charismatic and very informative on the topic with examples and all.

[@KAUSTUBHCHAKRABORTY]

@mathematicalmonk at 1:26 you write P(A, B, C) =P(A|C) P(B|C) P(C). How do you prove it?

[@PieroIT]

just... beautiful. thank you there are many tuts on conditional independence but this one is the easiest to follow I found. Kisses and hugs

[@michaelx9772]

The boiler story alone is worth a thousand likes

[@hazemalabiad]

Very helpful and simple explanation, thank you!

[@AhmedElGendyEmagile]

Thanks very much it makes it clear for me, appreciated

[@mnfchen]

A little confusing about the "Head - Tail" relationship, but I'm assuming when you say "the boiler and the alarm are conditionally independent upon observing smoke/steam", you mean that even though the boiler DID cause the alarm to go off, if we somehow DIDN'T know that particular fact but rather observe that the smoke/steam exists, that means we can still know the alarm will go off. In a less convoluted phrasing, given that we see smoke, we know the alarm will go off. We don't care about whether or not the boiler was on or off. The knowledge of the state of the boiler (on or off) is irrelevant since I see smoke, which itself is directly responsible for setting off the alarm (hence, "conditionally independent given the observation of smoke"). ... or am I wrong?

[@farhashazmeen5469]

The lecture is very good.

[@nevohraalnavnoj]

"And that was a merry Christmas day" --> Lol. :)

[@Snerfaru]

Excellent Video

[@1336921]

the lectures are quite good. But the example of smoke and steam is not clear enough.

[@damplex1935]

I don't agree with you, those examples really helped me figure out those relationships.

[@vaishnavimendu4257]

The example doesnt work for people who live outside USA and don't know how boilers function :/

[@nick_the_greek77]

This helped a lot ! Thanks!! :)

[@BerkayCelik]

you are right there is no mistake just bad writing. That's acceptable:)

[@maipyaar]

good

[@aritzovitzperezgoitia827]

I think that your assessment is not true. if a independent of b given c then simply p(a|bc)= p(a|c) or p(ab|c)=p(a|c)p(b|c)

[@etiennenoel14]

he said c however in the video so probably just bad writting...