Xodarap comments on A Pure Math Argument for Total Utilitarianism - Less Wrong

-5 Post author: Xodarap 27 October 2013 05:05PM

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

Comments (36)

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

Comment author: Xodarap 02 November 2013 08:10:06PM *  1 point [-]

it would be trivial for finite generating groups... That would mean only finitely many utility levels and then the result is obvious

Z^2 lexically ordered is finitely generated, and can't be embedded in (R,+). [EDIT: I'm now not sure if you meant "finitely generated" or "finite" here. If it's the latter, note that any ordered group must be torsion-free, which obviously excludes finite groups.]

But your implicit point is valid (+1) - I should've spent more time explaining why this result is surprising. Just about every comment on this article is "this is obvious because <some proof which is invalid>", which I guess is an indication LWers are so immersed in utilitarianism that counter-examples don't even come to mind.

Comment author: Salutator 04 November 2013 10:30:52PM 0 points [-]

I'm a bit out of my depth here. I understood an "ordered group" as a group with an order on its elements. That clearly can be finite. If it's more than that the question would be why we should assume whatever further axioms characterize it.

Comment author: Xodarap 19 January 2014 12:56:25PM 0 points [-]

If it's more than that the question would be why we should assume whatever further axioms characterize it

from wikipedia:

a partially ordered group is a group (G,+) equipped with a partial order "≤" that is translation-invariant; in other words, "≤" has the property that, for all a, b, and g in G, if a ≤ b then a+g ≤ b+g and g+a ≤ g+b

So if a > 0, a+a > a etc. which results means the group has to be torsion free.