= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timujin comments on Rationality Quotes June 2014 - 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 (279)
I don't get how the quote is related to the article.
I think the idea is something like: the probability of rolling 12 on fair 2d6 is 1/36, but the probability of fair dice being used when kings gamble for territory is far lower.
If the model of dice are perfectly fair and unbreakable is correct, then the Swedish king is justified in assigning very low probability to losing after rolling two sixes; but this model turns out to be incorrect in this case, and his confidence in winning should have been lower.
Of course it would be silly to apply this reasoning to dice in real life, but there are cases (like those discussed in the linked article) where the lesson applies.
If they were fair dice, there would still be a one in 72 chance of King Olaf getting the district. That's definitely worth rolling dice for.
Admittedly, the Swedish king knew his own dice were weighted, so if he thought Olaf's weren't he'd definitely win, but since he's not going to admit to cheating he's not going to tell Olaf that.