Is this question really qualified as a "wiki" question?

Frequentist probability: Can we prove mathematically what we are setting probabilities equal to, or are they just assumptions/definitions?

I understand that this is a conceptual question with several possible "right" answers, and the poster clearly has their own opinion on the subject. Yet, my history with wikis on stats usually are questions like, "What are good stats jokes?" or "What kind of texts or papers will help me get started in econometrics?" etc. If anything it could be a duplicate of any of the previous questions along the lines of misunderstandings in statistics and probability.

  • $\begingroup$ It is interesting how this question became a hot network question. It is always these type of questions that are not interesting but are still watched and answered by many. It is like this sketch about sexy dancers on TikTok by VivaLaDirtLeague. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 8 at 8:26
  • $\begingroup$ It won't be too much of a hard thing for a long time user to guess which would go to HNQ, as we conversed few days ago at Ten Fold, mainly that the question received two answers over a short span of time and those received quick upvotes @SextusEmpiricus (and yes, I agree with your assertion). $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 8 at 8:39

2 Answers 2


Firstly, it was marked as community wiki by whuber, following which kjetil removed the status subsequently to be again marked as community wiki by whuber:

enter image description here

As to the aptness of the status, it is properly articulated in this old meta CV thread:

... if it turns out that there truly isn't a right answer or a single answer that helps the asker, then it should be up to the asker to come back and make it a community wiki question to denote that there actually isn't a single right answer to solve the problem, but it's actually any (combination of) or all of the posted answers.

The current post in question deals with the agreement and soundness of the empirical probability, which brings into table both philosophical as well as mathematical take, as evident in the various answers it garnered.

There might be a single answer useful to OP, but the plausibility here is that all the posts are providing various outlooks and it is due to this that, imo, the question be made as community wiki and I agree with the decision.


It seems like OP marked it as wiki. I have removed that status.

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ On the contrary, I made it Wiki right after it was posted, anticipating that at best there would be many different legitimate answers offered. I feel the alternative is to close it as too unfocused. The answers it is already collecting have me leaning even more towards closure, but it is definitely on topic, so I have reverted it to wiki status. PS: If you're unsure how to check the timeline of a thread, let's discuss that in the mod chat. $\endgroup$
    – whuber Mod
    Commented Mar 6 at 20:57
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @whuber, why not convert that into an answer? After all, it does seem to be the answer to this Q. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 7 at 12:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'd have closed it, pending clarification of whether it's asking for a justification of the definition of probability as limiting frequency, or for an a priori argument why the probability of rolling a 6 should be 1 in 6. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 7 at 17:43

You must log in to answer this question.

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