= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lukeprog comments on An Intuitive Explanation of Solomonoff Induction - 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 (210)
The soldier in the probability section updates in the wrong direction. If you survived two shots to your helmet, then you were almost certainly not being shot at with a sniper rifle. For instance, my Mosin Nagant (a bolt-action 7.62x54mmR) will penetrate both sides of a WWII era infantry helmet (and presumably, a "soft target" in between) every single time (although, at a shorter range).
BTW, love the article.
Maybe Alex can clarify the wording there? I meant to indicate that the bullet glanced off the helmet (instead of "bouncing" off), because only a tiny part of the helmet was within the sniper's view.
I like this idea.
I actually read this as the shot glancing off the curve of the helmet due to angle, but since this seems to be a rational soldier it would indeed be much more elegant to have him use a helmet-stick probe.