= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
somervta comments on Open Thread, October 20 - 26, 2013 - 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 (211)
don't you mean chance of losing every bet?
If so, no way in hell those are conditionally independent. If not, what did you mean?
Yes.
Of course they are not conditionally independent, that's why I gave it as a lower bound.
Specifically, I think we can agree that whatever the exact relationships, the failure of one bet will increase the chance of failure of all the others: if the 6-month sheep bet fails, then the 12-month becomes more likely to fail, and to a smaller degree, the BMR ones become more likely to fail. And not the other way around. Hence independence is the best-case scenario, and so it's the lower bound, and that's why I wrote ">10%".
Ah, I see. I was confused by the '=' sign.