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.

DanielLC comments on Open Thread, May 19 - 25, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: somnicule 19 May 2014 04:49AM

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

Comments (289)

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

Comment author: DanielLC 19 May 2014 10:55:14PM 0 points [-]

I think adding a little meta-probability will help.

Since there's some probability of the sequence being "the most surprising", this would basically mean that several of the most surprising end up with basically the same probability. For example, if it takes n bits of data to define "the most surprising m-bit sequence", then there must be a 2^-n chance of that happening. Since there are 2^m sequences, and the most surprising sequence must have a probability of at most 2^-m, there must be at least 2^(m-n) most surprising sequences.