Thank you for taking the time to contribute! This paper is open to edits, corrections, and expansions from anyone who engages with Bayesian reasoning thoughtfully.
Always welcome:
- Typo and grammar fixes
- Clarity improvements — rewording sentences that are confusing or ambiguous
- Mathematical corrections — if a formula, calculation, or notation is wrong
- Formatting improvements — better structure, cleaner LaTeX/Markdown
Welcome with prior discussion (open an Issue first):
- New real-world scenarios illustrating Bayes' Theorem
- New sections or extensions to the paper (e.g., deeper coverage of Bayesian updating)
- Changes to the paper's core arguments or conclusions
- Adding citations or replacing existing ones with stronger sources
Not in scope:
- Changes that alter the paper's authorship or attribution
- Off-topic additions unrelated to Bayesian reasoning or decision-making
- Fork this repository to your own GitHub account
- Create a branch with a descriptive name:
git checkout -b fix/elevator-scenario-calculation git checkout -b add/medical-diagnosis-scenario - Make your edits to
whitepaper.md(or other files as appropriate) - Commit with a clear message explaining what you changed and why:
git commit -m "Fix: corrected P(drunk) denominator calculation in Scenario 1" - Open a Pull Request against the
mainbranch with:- A short title summarizing the change
- A description of what you changed and why
- If it's a math correction, show the corrected working
For anything beyond small fixes, please open an Issue before writing a PR. This avoids duplicated effort and lets us align on whether the change fits the paper's direction.
Good issue titles:
Suggestion: add a medical diagnosis scenario for Section 2Question: is the prior probability in elevator example sourced correctly?Bug: formula in Section 2.3 appears to have a typo
- Write in clear, accessible English, the paper is aimed at a general educated audience, not only mathematicians
- Use LaTeX notation for all formulas (as already used throughout the paper)
- Keep a neutral, academic tone
- Cite sources where you introduce new factual claims
Be respectful and constructive. Disagreements about content should focus on the argument, not the person. Contributions that are dismissive or unkind will not be merged.
Open an Issue or reach out to the author via LinkedIn.