= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobertLumley comments on Newcomb's problem - one boxer's introspection. - 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 (19)
It's been awhile, but isn't that essentially what I did?
That was my goal, the same but less verbose. and without needing to factor out probabilities that are later factored back in.
My question was unclear, let me try again; (Why) is it necessary to go through all the work to arrive at a probability that Omega will predict you correctly?
[edit question: is there anyway to do strike-through text in markdown? Or embed html tags?]