# Psychohistorian comments on Freaky Fairness - Less Wrong

9 25 July 2009 08:14AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: 25 July 2009 08:55:10AM *  0 points [-]

I choose a row and receive the first payoff in a pair, you choose a column and receive the second payoff.

This threw me off slightly; I believe the point was:

I choose a row, and you choose a column, so together we choose a specific pair; the first chooser thus gives the second chooser two options, and the second chooser picks the pair that is the outcome. I get the first payoff in that pair, and you get the second payoff in that pair.

Could be better written, but at least it is unambiguous, I think. It's also unclear if who chooses second is undetermined or predetermined; that it is undetermined seems vital for your conclusion.

Also, it took me a minute to figure out the epsilons are simply very small amounts (if they are, as I'm still not entirely sure). Unless I'm just unfamiliar with common terminology, your clarity would benefit if you mentioned this up front, or just used 3.01, 2.01, or just used 3+ϵ, 2+ϵ and mention ϵ is tiny, as the subscripts make them look like variables. Unless they are, in which case I just plain missed that.

Not to nitpick, but I figure if I got thrown off and had to reread a couple times, other people may not bother with those couple times.

Comment author: 25 July 2009 02:00:25PM *  2 points [-]

Lowercase epsilon actually is a fairly standard notation in mathematics, particularly calculus, representing an arbitrarily small value.

Comment author: 25 July 2009 09:07:15AM *  1 point [-]

No one chooses first, choices are simultaneous; and yes, epsilons are tiny and they are distinct variables (later we need to differentiate on them). I just edited the wording to make both points clearer.