The information I gave is the information you have. Don't make me make the problem more complicated.
ETA: Let me expand on this before people start getting on my case.
Rationality is about coming to the best conclusion you can given the information you have. If the information available to you is limited, you just have to deal with it.
Besides, sometimes, having less information makes the problem easier. Suppose I give you the following physics problem:
I throw a ball from a height of 4 feet; its maximum height is 10 feet. How long does it take from the time I throw it for it to hit the ground?
This problem is pretty easy. Now, suppose I also tell you that the ball is a sphere, and I tell you its mass and radius, and the viscosity of the air. This means that I'm expecting you to take air resistance into account, and suddenly the problem becomes a lot harder.
If you really want a problem where you have all the information, here:
Every time period, input A (of type Boolean) is revealed, and then input B (also of type Boolean) is revealed. There are no other inputs. In time period 0, input A is revealed to be TRUE, and then input B is revealed to be TRUE. In time period 1, input A is revealed to be TRUE, and then input B is revealed to be TRUE. In time period 2, input A is revealed to be FALSE. What is the probability that input B will be revealed to be TRUE?
Having less information makes easier the problem of satisfying the teacher. It does not make easier the problem of determining when the ball hits the ground. Incidentally, I got the impression somehow that there are venues where physics teachers scold students for using too much information.
ETA (months later): I do think it's a good exercise, I just think this is not why.
We've had these for a year, I'm sure we all know what to do by now.
This thread is for the discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts. If a discussion gets unwieldy, celebrate by turning it into a top-level post.