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.

Pfft comments on Open Thread, September 30 - October 6, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: Coscott 30 September 2013 05:18AM

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

Comments (295)

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

Comment author: Pfft 30 September 2013 09:56:58PM *  1 point [-]

Here's a variant which is slightly different, and perhaps stronger since it also allows some operations with "infinite accuracy".

In order to decide who won the bet, we need a referee. A natural choice is to say that the referee is a Blum-Shub-Smale machine, i.e. a program that gets a single real number x∈[0,1] as input, and whose operations are: loading real number constants; (exact) addition, substraction, multiplication and division; and branching on whether ab (exactly).

Say you win if the machine accepts x in a finite number of steps. Now, I think it's always the case that the set of numbers which are accepted after n steps is a finite union of (closed or open) intervals. So then the set of numbers that get accepted after any finite number of steps is a countable union of finite unions of intervals, hence Borel.