Psychohistorian comments on Freaky Fairness - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (36)
This threw me off slightly; I believe the point was:
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.
Lowercase epsilon actually is a fairly standard notation in mathematics, particularly calculus, representing an arbitrarily small value.
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.