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.

RichardKennaway comments on Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Gondolinian 26 January 2015 12:46AM

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

Comments (431)

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

Comment author: RichardKennaway 02 February 2015 09:43:40PM *  1 point [-]

Actually, I should have been using curly brackets, as when I wrote (0,1) I meant the set with two elements, 0 and 1, which is what I had taken X to be a product of copies of, hence my obtaining 50000 as the expected Manhattan distance between any two members. I'll correct the post to make that clear. I think everything I said would still apply to the continuous case. If it doesn't, that would be better addressed with a separate comment.

Comment author: one_forward 04 February 2015 08:34:14PM 0 points [-]

Yeah, I don't think it makes much difference in high-dimensions. It's just more natural to talk about smoothness in the continuous case.