Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

ygert comments on Failed Utopia #4-2 - Less Wrong

52 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 21 January 2009 11:04AM

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

Comments (248)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: ygert 28 December 2012 09:16:32AM *  0 points [-]

I probably would say that that is because your two sets A and B do not carve reality at its joints. What I think army1987 intended to talk about is "real" sets, where a "real" set is defined as one that carves reality at its joints in one form or another.

Comment author: Kawoomba 28 December 2012 09:43:33AM 0 points [-]

What I think army1987 intended to talk about is "real" sets

There will be some real sets that are similar to Nominull's (well, natural numbers are a subset of reals, eh?), however army1987 did emphasize the any, so Nominull's correction was well warranted.

Comment author: [deleted] 28 December 2012 11:57:58AM *  1 point [-]

Er, no, I was just mistaken. (And forgot to retract the great-grandparent -- done now.) For a pair of sets who do carve reality at (one of) its joints but still is like that, try A = {(10, 0), (30, 0), (50, 0), (70, 0)} and B = {(40, 1), (40, 1), (40, 1), (40, 1)}.

(What I was thinking were cases were A = {10, 20, 30, 40} and B = {11, 21, 31, 41}, where it is the case that “two random members of A are more alike than a random member of A and a random member of B”, and my point was that “Two random men are more alike than a random man and a random woman” doesn't rule out {men} and {women} being like that.)

Comment author: ygert 28 December 2012 12:09:47PM 0 points [-]

Ah, okay then. That makes sense.