= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
neq1 comments on Conditioning on Observers - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (118)
I guess I don't see why it's weird. The number of times she will bet is dependent on the outcome. So, even though at each awakening she thinks probability of heads is 1/2, she knows if it's tails she'll have to bet many more times than if heads. We're essentially just making her bet more money on a loss than on a win.
In that case, what does it even mean to say "my subjective probability for heads is 1/2"? Subjective probability is often described in terms of bettings - see here.
Seems to me this is mostly a quarrel of definitions, and that when you say "people who believe the answer is 1/3 pictured counts in a 3 by 1 contingency table, and applied the wrong theory to it.", you're being unfair. They're just using a different definition of "subjective probability"
Don't you think so?
Based on my interaction with people here, I think we all are talking about the same thing when it comes to subjective probability.
I agree that you can use betting to describe subjective probability, but there are a lot of possible ways to bet.
"Subjective probability" is a basic term in decision theory and economics, though. If you want to roll your own metric, surely you should call it something else - to avoid much confusion.
That is why I'd rather talk in terms of bets than subjective probability - they don't require precise technical definitions.