Omegaile comments on Solving the two envelopes problem - Less Wrong

32 Post author: rstarkov 09 August 2012 01:42PM

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

Comments (33)

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

Comment author: Omegaile 13 August 2012 07:02:07PM 0 points [-]

On the other hand, perhaps you only want to think about distributions for which it seems the paradox still holds: ones in which that, regardless of how much money you find in envelope A, envelope B still has an equal chance of being twice as much or half as much

I don't see your conclusion holding. I am inclined to say: Therefore there are no distributions which that, regardless of how much money you find in envelope A, envelope B still has an equal chance of being twice as much or half as much.

Comment author: wedrifid 13 August 2012 07:42:07PM 0 points [-]

I don't see your conclusion holding. I am inclined to say: Therefore there are no distributions which that, regardless of how much money you find in envelope A, envelope B still has an equal chance of being twice as much or half as much.

I suppose "numbers selected from all the numbers in the series 2^n" and so forth are ruled out of being distributions based on the "infinities and uncomputable things are just silly" principle? (I am fairly confident that) something on that order of difficulty is going to required to provide the envelopes. A task that is beyond even Omega in the universe as we know it but perhaps not beyond an intelligent agent in the possible universes that represent computational abstractions natively.

Comment author: Omegaile 13 August 2012 07:49:20PM 0 points [-]

Actually there are no uniform distribution in this set (an infinite enumerable set). You may select numbers from this set, but some of them will have higher probability than others.

Comment author: wedrifid 13 August 2012 08:23:11PM 0 points [-]

Actually there are no uniform distribution in this set (an infinite enumerable set).

That is what I was getting at with 'ruled out of being distributions'.

Comment author: Omegaile 13 August 2012 08:33:41PM 0 points [-]

Oh... I misunderstood you then.