= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on The ideas you're not ready to post - 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 (253)
Can you characterize a bit more concretely what you mean, by zooming in on a tiny part of this planned work? It's no easy task to go from common sense to math, and not shoot your both feet off in the process.
Basically, I want to reconstruct, slowly, the dutch book and vulnerability arguments, but step by step, with all the bits that confused me filled in.
The basic common sense rule that these are built on is "don't accept a situation in which you know you automatically lose" (where "lose" is used to the same level of generality that "win" is in "rationalists win.")
One of the reasons I like dutch book/vulnerability arguments is that each step ends up being relatively straightforward as to getting from that principle to the math. (Sometimes an additional concept needs to be introduced, not so much proven as much as defined and made explicit.)