I only read it two years ago and I am still puzzled by two things in it:

i) the strange definition by Bayes of probability as a ratio of two expected values;

ii) the will of Bayes to substitute at the end of the paper (his “scholium” between propositions 9 & 10) the assumption of a uniform distribution on the probability of the event M (abscissa of the position of the first ball thrown on the billard table) by the assumption of the equiprobability of the numbers of successes M in n trials before any experiment (ie a uniform prior predictive distribution=1/(n+1) value following from the corollary of proposition 8 on the marginal of the no of occurrences of M).

I would be curious to hear your comments on these historical aspects of Bayes’ contribution.

]]>