= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on You're in Newcomb's Box - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (172)
Incorrect rules. You don't need the "don't invite to his games" one, and you don't need randomization. Corrected here.
Both rules work. In both games, one-boxing no matter what is the winning strategy.
I designed my rules have the feature that by one-boxing upon seeing an empty box B you visibly prove Omega wrong. In the version you linked to, you don't necessarily: maybe Omega left box B empty because you would have two-boxed if it was full.
So both problems can be reasonably called "Transparent Newcomb". The one you linked to was invented first and is simpler, though.