= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Warrigal comments on Cultivating our own gardens - 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 (47)
After reading the first two or three paragraphs, I pondered for a moment. The first approach I came up with was to start with a triangle and begin adding everything that has at least three links to existing things. The second I came up with was to start with a bunch of triangles on independent "maps" and begin stitching those maps together.
And hey, the second one turns out to be the one they used, judging by the fourth paragraph.
Given that I'm not consciously being deceitful, what should I conclude about myself?
Nothing. It's absolutely natural to do it that way. If there are any triangles in the graph.
Ah, right. Apparently I was a bit quick to assume that I had the right answer.