cousin_it comments on The Rhythm of Disagreement - Less Wrong

12 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 01 June 2008 08:18PM

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

Comments (65)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: cousin_it 24 May 2012 07:04:55PM *  1 point [-]

Assume the envelope contents are distributed arbitrarily on [A,+infinity) where A is some large number. Let f(x)=1/x (the values for x<1 don't matter). Then the expected benefit of Thrun's algorithm is always 1/4, even though the difference in f(x) between the values of any two envelopes is less than 1/A. To convince yourself of that, work out the proof yourself or run a computational experiment:

from random import random
n = 100000
thrun = 0
chance = 0
for i in range(n):
smaller = 2+3*random() # replace this line with anything
selected,other = smaller,2*smaller
if random() > 0.5:
selected,other = other,selected
chance += (selected if (random() > 0.5) else other)
thrun += (selected if (random() > 1/selected) else other)
print (thrun-chance)/n
Comment author: JGWeissman 24 May 2012 07:31:53PM 0 points [-]

I tried to prove it, and I am getting an expected benifet of 1/4, and I am worried that I am making a mistake related to reording the terms of a non absolutely converging series.

If you are right, you could do better with f(x) = 2/x, and the values for x < 2 don't matter.

Comment author: cousin_it 24 May 2012 07:36:09PM *  0 points [-]

Sorry, I mistyped the comment, fixed it immediately but I guess you saw the old version. It's 1/4 of course.

I'm not sure what remains of Eliezer's original point now...

Comment author: JGWeissman 24 May 2012 07:41:41PM 1 point [-]

Ah, that old confounder in the rhythm of disagreement: a smart person who appears to disagree with you might not have said what they meant to say. ;)

Comment author: thomblake 24 May 2012 08:03:34PM 0 points [-]

Replacing "3" with "10000" gets me varying results, mostly negative at a glance. What am I missing?

Comment author: cousin_it 24 May 2012 08:20:37PM *  0 points [-]

You're not missing anything, but the variance is quite high, you'll need many more samples. Or you could try writing a program that converges faster, I'm a total newbie at these things.