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.

Nerai comments on Probabilistic Löb theorem - Less Wrong Discussion

24 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 26 April 2013 06:45PM

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

Comments (39)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: [deleted] 28 April 2013 09:06:05PM *  2 points [-]

-

Comment author: hairyfigment 29 April 2013 03:47:10PM -1 points [-]

Even though Loeb's theorem can't be derived by a translation of the standard proof with two epsilon large bounds, might there still be a different proof?

Again, Christiano et al supposedly prove the existence of a coherent distribution with certain properties. (Someone who knows game theory better than I do should work out what the proof depends on.) Any such distribution necessarily violates the probabilistic Loeb's theorem, for roughly the reason given in the OP's second-to-last section.

Is there an intuitive justification for the two epsilon large bound other than that it stops Loeb's theorem from being derived?

Not as far as this lay-reader can see. Again, the distribution must satisfy derivation principle #1. I can't tell if it must obey #3, though if it does that would seem to rule out a stronger version of #2.