= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
AlephNeil comments on Dutch Books and Decision Theory: An Introduction to a Long Conversation - 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 (100)
The Bayesian doesn't know Z is stronger than Y. He can't even read all of Z. Or if you compress it, he can't decompress it.
P(Y|Z)<1.
Imagine he has read and memorized all of Z.
If you want to make it a bit less unrealistic, imagine there are only, say, 1000 difficult proofs randomly chopped and spliced rather than a gazillion - but still too many for the subject to make head or tail of. Perhaps imagine them adding up to a book about the size of the Bible, which a person can memorize in its entirety given sufficient determination.
Oh I see. Chopped and spliced. That makes more sense. I missed that in your previous comment.
The Bayesian still does not know that Z implies Y, because he has not found Y in Z, so there still isn't a problem.