You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

AnotherKevin comments on Gödel and Bayes: quick question - Less Wrong Discussion

1 Post author: hairyfigment 14 April 2011 06:12AM

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: AnotherKevin 16 April 2011 12:48:35AM 0 points [-]

Z is defined correctly. When X >= 0 the formula becomes N(X) AND TRUE when X < 0 the formula becomes TRUE AND N(0-X).

Otherwise I was confused. I was trying to define N implicitly which I should have recognized as invalid. Explaining what I was trying to say at the end would be pointless given that I didn't say it and it's also wrong =P. Mea culpa

Comment author: Sniffnoy 16 April 2011 08:25:43AM *  1 point [-]

Oh, you said "and"; my apologies, I implicitly read an "or" there!