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.

komponisto comments on Take heed, for it is a trap - Less Wrong Discussion

47 Post author: Zed 14 August 2011 10:23AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (187)

Comments (187)

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

Comment author: komponisto 17 August 2011 05:26:04AM 0 points [-]

Let n be an integer...You need a prior distribution on n. Without a prior, these probabilities are not 50%. They are undefined.

Who said anything about not having a prior distribution? "Let n be a [randomly selected] integer" isn't even a meaningful statement without one!

What gave you the impression that I thought probabilities could be assigned to non-hypotheses?

Finally, on an empirical level, it seems like there are more false n-bit statements than true n-bit statements.

This is irrelevant: once you have made an observation like this, you are no longer in a state of total ignorance.

Comment author: wmorgan 17 August 2011 06:02:01AM *  1 point [-]

We agree that we can't assign a probability to a property of a number without a prior distribution. And yet it seems like you're saying that it is nonetheless correct to assign a probability of truth to a statement without a prior distribution, and that the probability is 50% true, 50% false.

Doesn't the second statement follow from the first? Something like this:

  1. For any P, a nontrivial predicate on integers, and an integer n, Pr(P(n)) is undefined without a distribution on n.
  2. Define X(n), a predicate on integers, true if and only if the nth Godel number is true.
  3. Pr(X(n)) is undefined without a distribution on n.

Integers and statements are isomorphic. If you're saying that you can assign a probability to a statement without knowing anything about the statement, then you're saying that you can assign a probability to a property of a number without knowing anything about the number.

Comment author: komponisto 17 August 2011 06:34:43AM *  1 point [-]

We agree that we can't assign a probability to a property of a number without a prior distribution. And yet it seems like you're saying that it is nonetheless correct to assign a probability of truth to a statement without a prior distribution,

That is not what I claim. I take it for granted that all probability statements require a prior distribution. What I claim is that if the prior probability of a hypothesis evaluates to something other than 50%, then the prior distribution cannot be said to represent "total ignorance" of whether the hypothesis is true.

This is only important at the meta-level, where one is regarding the probability function as a variable -- such as in the context of modeling logical uncertainty, for example. It allows one to regard "calculating the prior probability" as a special case of "updating on evidence".

Comment author: wmorgan 17 August 2011 02:27:48PM 0 points [-]

I think I see what you're saying. You're saying that if you do the math out, Pr(S) comes out to 0.5, just like 0! = 1 or a^0 = 1, even though the situation is rare where you'd actually want to calculate those things (permutations of zero elements or the empty product, respectively). Do I understand you, at least?

I expect Pr(S) to come out to be undefined, but I'll work through it and see. Anyway, I'm not getting any karma for these comments, so I guess nobody wants to see them. I won't fill the channel with any more noise.

Comment author: Zed 17 August 2011 09:10:31AM *  0 points [-]

[ replied to the wrong person ]

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit