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.

DataPacRat comments on Open thread, Nov. 09 - Nov. 15, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: MrMind 09 November 2015 08:07AM

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

Comments (175)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: DataPacRat 09 November 2015 11:06:29AM 4 points [-]

Seeking mathematician for story's analysis

While I'm writing a story where a character tries to solve a problem using meta-uncertainty, I know a useful trick is to treat uncertainty on a logarithmic scale rather than a linear one, as that comes closer to usefully representing how increasing evidence increases certainty.

I'm working with a problem where the character's reasoning process itself is questionable, and so it's uncertain that the calculated most-accurate-possible level uncertainty is actually the most accurate possible level. I'm guessing that it may be useful to treat the calculated level of uncertainty as a normal Guassian distribution, with the X scale measured in logarithmic confidence units (" decibans ").

Converting the graph from a logarithmic scale to a linear one would seem to do interesting things. Using some rules of thumb and guesstimation, my current draft of the relevant paragraph reads:

"Let's see - let's say that my best guess, the centre of the curve on the logarithmic scale, is at ten decibans, with a standard deviation of something near ten decibans. About the only thing I remember about standard distributions is that a squidge over two-thirds of the area under the curve is within one standard deviation, and ninety-five percent within two. So something like, mm, a seventh of the probability mass would be between minus ten and zero decibans, a third from zero to ten, a third from ten to twenty, and a seventh from twenty to thirty. Converting from decibans to linear probability, a seventh of the probability would be between ten percent and fifty percent, a third from fifty to ninety percent, a third from ninety to ninety-nine percent, and a seventh from ninety-nine percent to ninety-nine point nine. Pretending for a minute that each of those four buckets have their probability equally spread out, and taking the averages, let's see... an average of somewhere around seventy-five percent.

If this character then consulted an actual mathematician, how much correction would be needed to turn this approach into a useful certainty estimate?

Thank you for your time.