Alexei comments on Tendencies in reflective equilibrium - Less Wrong

27 Post author: Yvain 20 July 2011 10:38AM

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

Comments (69)

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

Comment author: Alexei 20 July 2011 10:08:11PM 0 points [-]

I don't think it really matters at that point. I would not treat the situation differently if the mugger said "3^^^3" or if he explicitly stated some number "34084549...843".

Comment author: JGWeissman 20 July 2011 10:14:17PM 3 points [-]

"34084549...843"

I don't think you are appreciating the complexity penalty of the (presumably not very compressible) data hidden behind that ellipses, if the number is meant to be on the order fo 3^^^3.

Comment author: Alexei 21 July 2011 06:09:39PM -1 points [-]

Well, see, I would disagree with your presumption. The data might look random to you, but I could just point out that all the digits are actually taken from PI, starting with 3^^3rd digit. That simplifies the complexity tremendously. Or I could say I got those digits randomly. That again simplifies the complexity, because generating that number was simple.

Comment author: JGWeissman 21 July 2011 07:33:46PM 2 points [-]

I would disagree with your presumption.

If my presumption that the digits are not very compressible is wrong, then you have not really responded to Daniel's point about the ridiculous roundness of the number (where roundness is one way a number can be compressible).

Or I could say I got those digits randomly. That again simplifies the complexity, because generating that number was simple.

No. Getting "random" digits is not simple, or even an available action, for a deterministic generator. Saying to get "random" data can feel simple because you are just pointing at some source of data that you are ignorant about, but really, you have to account for the complexity of that source of data.

Comment author: wedrifid 20 July 2011 11:05:04PM 5 points [-]

I don't think it really matters at that point. I would not treat the situation differently if the mugger said "3^^^3" or if he explicitly stated some number "34084549...843".

I would pay $5 to not have to listen to the mugger explicitly state a number that long.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 20 July 2011 11:34:43PM 1 point [-]

I once offered a similar deal to a tuba player on a subway platform.