On 04/02/2016 02:44, Fred Lunnon wrote:
Without some explicit expressions to discuss, I'm grasping at air here. But I find it difficult to credit that assuming a uniform distribution of n in (say) [1..100] would result in an estimated n substantially different from [1..10^10] , when --- in my present experiment --- I had k = 4 coupons at m = 7 trials, and k remains unchanged at m = 17 .
I think this (suitably generalized) is probably correct. (I haven't actually done any of the relevant calculations.) It's equivalent to max likelihood. But Allan's original claim wasn't that max likelihood doesn't give a definite answer, it was that since you may have prior opinions about how likely any given n is, you need to take them into account when choosing an n in light of the evidence. And for that there's no particular reason why you should use max-likelihood -- and the fact that for k=m max-likelihood says bigger n are always better seems sufficient to indicate that it isn't a good general answer. -- g