Divide comments on So You Think You're a Bayesian? The Natural Mode of Probabilistic Reasoning - Less Wrong

48 Post author: Matt_Simpson 14 July 2010 04:51PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (79)
Tags: bias psychology heuristic standard_biases

Comments (79)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Divide 16 July 2010 01:50:11AM 7 points [-]

For example, 341, 0011001100110001, and XXXI all represent the same number using different systems of representation.

Okay, this is silly, but I can't for the life of me figure out what that number and those systems of representation are.

Comment author: Alicorn 16 July 2010 05:47:28AM 5 points [-]

You get points for being confused by fiction!

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 16 July 2010 05:25:51AM *  0 points [-]

Base 10, binary, and roman numerals - in that order. (The number is 341)

EDIT: the base 10 number was wrong, it's 31.

Comment author: Alicorn 16 July 2010 05:29:18AM *  1 point [-]

But Roman numerals for 341 would be CCCXLI, surely? XXXI is 31.

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 16 July 2010 05:45:23AM *  0 points [-]

...and this is why I should type numbers on a numpad. It's supposed to be 31. Thanks

Comment author: mattnewport 16 July 2010 05:35:37AM 0 points [-]

The binary is also not 341.

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 16 July 2010 05:46:30AM *  0 points [-]

Yep, it should be 31. Thanks. (see my comment to Alicorn's post above, and my comment below... sheesh, this is a lesson in double checking things)

Comment author: nhamann 16 July 2010 05:53:36AM *  2 points [-]

Am I dense, or is the binary not 31? 31 in binary is 11111. What's in your post is not even binary coded decimal, as the leading zeros would seem to indicate, since there are two extra 3's. I feel like I'm missing something.

Comment author: saturn 16 July 2010 07:01:10AM 0 points [-]

0011001100110001 in ASCII is "31".

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 16 July 2010 07:27:20AM 0 points [-]

Aha! here's the converter used the first time.

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 16 July 2010 05:57:03AM 0 points [-]

No, you aren't being dense. I used the first binary calculator I found on the net to change 31 into binary, and either I entered 31 into it incorrectly or it was just flat out wrong for some reason. Thanks again, and fixed again.

Comment author: Aurini 16 July 2010 05:13:14AM *  0 points [-]

Three possibilities:

  1. You're too dumb to notice the obvious,
  2. I don't get jokes, or:
  3. I'm too dumb to even notice the puzzle.

I feel a recursive loop coming on... YEEEAAAAARGH!

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit