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.

DanArmak comments on True numbers and fake numbers - Less Wrong Discussion

19 Post author: cousin_it 06 February 2014 12:29PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (128)

Comments (128)

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

Comment author: DanArmak 07 February 2014 01:25:49PM *  2 points [-]

The OP's definition of a "true" number isn't that it's useful, meaningful or corresponding to something "real". It's merely that it's objectively measurable and actually measured..

you come up with some numerical quantity, discover interesting facts about it, use it to analyze real-world situations - but never actually get around to measuring it. I call such things "theoretical quantities" or "fake numbers",

Comment author: sixes_and_sevens 07 February 2014 02:23:05PM -1 points [-]

But why is this an interesting property that's worthy of consideration?

Comment author: DanArmak 07 February 2014 07:27:41PM *  2 points [-]

It's a specific failure mode that's useful to talk about because it might let us recognize real-world failure in some "false" numbers. That's not intended to imply there aren't other failure modes; it's not a sufficient test for the quality of a 'number'.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit