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.

HonoreDB 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: HonoreDB 03 December 2011 03:55:48PM 0 points [-]

Yeah, that's the solution. And one that should be obvious to anyone familiar with Jaynes. Probabilities are about states of knowledge, not about physical propensity.

That's why I expected to "get" fewer people on LW than on xkcd. One welcome surprise was that it seems to have served as an intuition pump for one person over there, who had, only a few days earlier, written

The point is that you cannot, from the observations described, exactly determine the probability...

This same person initially responded that the problem was impossible, but then was enlightened:

So Bob's probabilities are a function of Bob's knowledge...Mea culpa.

Comment author: Anatoly_Vorobey 03 December 2011 07:56:22PM 1 point [-]

I'm having trouble understanding how you (and buybuydandavis) see this puzzle as illustrating (or evidencing?) a subjective approach to probability. Wouldn't it be perfectly solvable in the frequency/propensity approaches in just the same way? Conditional probability and the Bayes rule work the same way everywhere.

(I haven't read Jaynes yet) (Also enjoyed working out your puzzle, and reposted it in my blog, hope you don't mind)

Comment author: HonoreDB 04 December 2011 06:27:51AM 1 point [-]

Certainly don't mind. It's certainly solvable with a propensity approach, it's just that the problem description points you toward the wrong kind of propensity: there really is an absolute proportion of coins to envelopes that has strictly decreased, but that's not the relevant value.