Jayson_Virissimo comments on Beyond Bayesians and Frequentists - Less Wrong

36 Post author: jsteinhardt 31 October 2012 07:03AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (51)

Comments (51)

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

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 31 October 2012 08:34:43AM 6 points [-]

Good catch on Cox's theorem; that is now fixed. Do you know if the dutch book argument corresponds to a named theorem?

There is a whole class of dutch book arguments, so I'm not sure which one you mean by the dutch book argument.

In any case, Susan Vineberg's formulation of the Dutch Book Theorem goes like this:

Given a set of betting quotients that fails to satisfy the probability axioms, there is a set of bets with those quotients that guarantees a net loss to one side.

Comment author: jsteinhardt 31 October 2012 04:33:42PM 0 points [-]

Yes, that is the one I had in mind. Thanks!

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 01 November 2012 04:38:49AM 4 points [-]

Then you might think you could have inconsistent betting prices that would harm the person you bet with, but not you, which sounds fine.

Rather: "If your betting prices don't obey the laws of probability theory, then you will either accept combinations of bets that are sure losses, or pass up combinations of bets that are sure gains."

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit