= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Brilliand comments on No Anthropic Evidence - 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 (34)
I'm not getting the same result... let's see if I have this right.
If you quit if the first coin is heads: 50%*75% death rate from quitting on heads, 50%*50% death rate from tails
If you never quit: 50% death rate from eventually getting tails (minus epsilon from branches where you never get tails)
These deathrates are fixed rather than a distribution, so switching to a logarithm isn't going to change which of them is larger.
I don't think the formula you link to is appropriate for this problem... it's dominated by the log(2^-n) factor, which fails to account for 50% of your possible branches being immune to death by tails. Similarly, your term for quitting damage fails to account for some of your branches already being dead when you quit. I propose this formula as more applicable.