AnotherKevin comments on Gödel and Bayes: quick question - Less Wrong

1 Post author: hairyfigment 14 April 2011 06:12AM

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

Comments (36)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: AnotherKevin 16 April 2011 12:48:35AM 0 points [-]

Z is defined correctly. When X >= 0 the formula becomes N(X) AND TRUE when X < 0 the formula becomes TRUE AND N(0-X).

Otherwise I was confused. I was trying to define N implicitly which I should have recognized as invalid. Explaining what I was trying to say at the end would be pointless given that I didn't say it and it's also wrong =P. Mea culpa

Comment author: Sniffnoy 16 April 2011 08:25:43AM *  1 point [-]

Oh, you said "and"; my apologies, I implicitly read an "or" there!