= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on Stupid Questions Open Thread Round 3 - 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 (208)
If difficulty of selecting and implementing a strategy is part of the tradeoff (so that more complicated strategies count as "worse" because of their difficulty, even if they promise an otherwise superior outcome), maybe there are "best" strategies in some sense, like there is a biggest natural number that you can actually write down in 30 seconds. (Such things would of course have the character of particular decisions, not of decision theory.)
There is not a biggest natural number that you can actually write down in thirty seconds -- that's equivalent to Berry's paradox.
Huh? Just start writing. The rule wasn't "the number you can define in 30 seconds", but simply "the number you can write down in 30 seconds". Like the number of strawberries you can eat in 30 seconds, no paradox there!
I was reading "write down" more generally than "write down each digit of in base ten," but I guess that's not how you meant it.
Hmm if it was a programming contest I would expect non-transitive 'betterness'.
Given a fixed state of knowledge about possible opponents and finite number of feasible options for your decision, there will be maximal decisions, even if in an iterated contest the players could cycle their decisions against updated opponents indefinitely.