= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on Edward Nelson claims proof of inconsistency in Peano Arithmetic - 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 (115)
I've put up on Prediction Book a relevant prediction. The main reason I've given only a 75% percent chance that it may take a lot of time to study the matter in detail.
If you are putting 10% on the chance that Nelson's proof will turn out to be correct, then 10% seems way too high for essentially reasons that benelliot touched on below. My own estimate for this is being correct is around 0.5%. (That's sort of a meta estimate which tries to take into account my own patterns of over and underconfidence for different types of claims.) I'd be willing to bet 100$ to 1$ which would be well within both of our stated estimates.
Interesting. Has your prior for "a contradiction will be found in the next hundred years" moved since Nelson's announcement?
My 5/40/5/10 numbers are (were) my estimation of the chance that a contradiction will be found in my lifetime. I'm far less certain that Nelson will have it sewed up in a few months, as he's claiming, but it's still quite likely he's made a big breakthrough.
Oh. I see. I thought your numbers were for Nelson's proof working. Hmm, given that, they seem more reasonable but still too high. I'd need to think more carefully about how likely I'd estimate things.
Depending on the exact conditions, I might be prepared to take that.