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.

Anatoly_Vorobey comments on Probability puzzle: Coins in envelopes - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: HonoreDB 02 December 2011 05:58AM

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

Comments (18)

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

Comment author: Anatoly_Vorobey 02 December 2011 03:29:02PM 2 points [-]

Each hypothesis leads to an expected value of (X-1)/(m-1)

(X-1)/m, because the emptied envelope is shuffled back into the set.

Comment author: Manfred 02 December 2011 04:12:35PM *  0 points [-]

Oh, whoops, I didn't read the question correctly. Drat, then it's not Laplace's rule of succession.

In fact, that messes up pretty much everything - I've finally found a use for the retract button.

Comment author: Anatoly_Vorobey 02 December 2011 05:32:33PM 1 point [-]

Well, not everything - it isn't Laplace's rule of succession, but if you correct the mistake, you've pretty much solved part 2. Instead of a fixed value you get an equation you can solve for m.

Comment author: Manfred 02 December 2011 08:26:15PM *  0 points [-]

That's true. It also invalidates my answer for part 1, which is a bit trickier to correct, because you no longer have the nice symmetry.