Another typo slain

an uniform prior --> a uniform prior.

I should put all these in one PR...

Author: pushmatrix

Chapter2_MorePyMC/MorePyMC.ipynb

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
   {
    "cells": [
     {
-     "cell_type": "markdown",
+     "cell_type": "markdown",wi
      "metadata": {},
      "source": [
       "Chapter 2\n",
@@ -1387,7 +1387,7 @@
      "source": [
       "With regards to the above plot, we are still pretty uncertain about what the true frequency of cheaters might be, but we have narrowed it down to a range between 0.05 to 0.35 (marked by the solid lines). This is pretty good, as *a priori* we had no idea how many students might have cheated (hence the uniform distribution for our prior). On the other hand, it is also pretty bad since there is a .3 length window the true value most likely lives in. Have we even gained anything, or are we still too uncertain about the true frequency? \n",
       "\n",
-      "I would argue, yes, we have discovered something. It is implausible, according to our posterior, that there are *no cheaters*, i.e. the posterior assigns low probability to $p=0$. Since we started with an uniform prior, treating all values of $p$ as equally plausible, but the data ruled out $p=0$ as a possibility, we can be confident that there were cheaters. \n",
+      "I would argue, yes, we have discovered something. It is implausible, according to our posterior, that there are *no cheaters*, i.e. the posterior assigns low probability to $p=0$. Since we started with a uniform prior, treating all values of $p$ as equally plausible, but the data ruled out $p=0$ as a possibility, we can be confident that there were cheaters. \n",
       "\n",
       "This kind of algorithm can be used to gather private information from users and be *reasonably* confident that the data, though noisy, is truthful. \n",
       "\n"
@@ -2613,4 +2613,4 @@
    "metadata": {}
   }
  ]
-}
+}