= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
potato comments on Naming the Highest Virtue of Epistemic Rationality - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (28)
Twelve virtues is really popular, that's why I wrote that. I'll take it out if it's distracting. (done and done)
I was actually disagreeing with them, you understand this right. If not let me know, cause that's important for my readers to get off the bat. Those are the two quotes I remember most clearly saying that we shouldn't name the highest value. i put them there as evidence that not naming the highest value is standard LW doctrine. So if it came off as quoting doctrine perhaps I made my point.
On the Log stuff. I know other bases work fine too. But normalization is nice, actually i think I write log_b somewhere.
Not just other bases. I can construct another function as follows: Fix a basis for R over Q. I can do this if I believe in the axiom of choice. Call the elements of that basis x(i). Consider then the function that takes elements of log_x, writes them with respect to the basis and then zeros the coordinate connected to a fixed basis element x(0). This function will have your desired property and is not a constant times log.
Interesting. Is it continuous as well?
I may be wrong. But I think EY say's in tech explanation that no other function satisfies that condition and is also proper.
Is this f a proper scoring rule?
No. This is wildly non-continuous. It also isn't proper. This is why specifying what your hypotheses are for your theorems is important.
good point.But I think I said it had to be proper. I've made that more explicit.