jsalvatier comments on Decision Theories: A Semi-Formal Analysis, Part I - Less Wrong

21 Post author: orthonormal 24 March 2012 04:01PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (90)
Tags: newcombs_problem naive prisoners_dilemma decision_theory

Comments (90)

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

Comment author: orthonormal 27 March 2012 11:41:44PM 1 point [-]

Because in the second example, it's been deduced that (output X)=a. It's like how you can prove anything from a false premise.

Comment author: jsalvatier 28 March 2012 07:10:43PM *  2 points [-]

I think it might help to say that explicitly.

Comment author: orthonormal 28 March 2012 11:44:31PM 0 points [-]

Good call. Is my edit better?

Comment author: jsalvatier 29 March 2012 12:57:31AM 0 points [-]

Yes, though I would say "because you can prove anything from a false premise".

Comment author: orthonormal 29 March 2012 09:02:59PM 1 point [-]

Subtle distinction: it's not unconditionally taking a false axiom and deriving a spurious conclusion, it's proving a conditional by proving the antecedent is false.

I'll see if I can improve the wording.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit