= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Trevor_Blake comments on Simulating Problems - 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 (41)
If a simulation of poker looses money in a way that is similar to a game of poker, it is a good simulation because it will allow for more accurate worst-case budgeting.
You mean, if an agent loses money. And that's the point; if the only thing you know is that an agent loses money in a simulation of poker, how can you prove the same is true for real poker?
I think Karl Popper made the the best case that there are no final proofs, only provisional, and that the way to find the more useful provisional proofs is to note how they fail and not how they succeed. A poker simulator that can tell me accurately how much I might loose is more helpful than one that tells me how much I might win. I can budget based on the former and not the later.
If you want final proofs (models, theories, simulations) the answer is there are no scientific final proofs.
I could be wrong, or perhaps i have answered a question not asked.