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.

paper-machine comments on Open thread, Mar. 9 - Mar. 15, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: MrMind 09 March 2015 07:48AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (109)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (109)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 11 March 2015 06:38:40PM 1 point [-]

First off, it seems weird to say "I have 33 bits of evidence that this bit is a 1."

It seems weird to me because the bits of "33 bits" looks like the same units as the bit of "this bit", but they aren't the same. Map/territory. From now on, I'm calling the first, A-bits, and the second, B-bits.

Why does it take an infinite number of bits of evidence to get 1 bit of information?

It takes an infinite number of A-bits to know with absolute certainty one B-bit.

But that means a one-bit evidence-giver is someone who is right 2/3 of the time. Why the 2/3? That seems weird.

What were you expecting?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit