= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on Ask LW: PredictionBook.com and logical uncertainty - 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 (4)
That's close to accurate but note that some have both a truth claim and an operational claim. See e.g. http://predictionbook.com/predictions/2838 which predicts that P != NP and predicts that it will be proven by a certain time.
In general your point about operational predictions is a good one, since predictions should be actually falsifiable.
I was actually thinking of your predictions when I said 'implicit'. How would that prediction be judged? Obviously by whether the community of mathematicians/complexity theorists like Scott Aaronson or the Clay Institute says that it was proven or not proven.