= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I was thinking about the introductions too; I think this time we probably can do something a bit more structured.
suggestion posted to the Google Group:
Another idea might be to decide ahead of each meetup on a few topics for discussion to allow some time to prepare, research and think about things for some time before discussing with each other.
In response to
Too good to be true
Was that "exactly 95% confidence" or "at least 95% confidence"?
Also, different studies have different statistical power, so it may not be OK to simply add up their evidence with equal weights.
In response to
Too good to be true
Was that "exactly 95% confidence" or "at least 95% confidence"?
In response to
Meetup : Houston, TX
(I highly recommend that everyone join the Google Group so that we can all communicate in a single place by email)
Does anyone else feel like trying to get this meeting a little bit more structured?
For example, something as simple as brief but prepared self-introductions covering your interests (related or unrelated to LW) and anything else about yourself that you might consider worth a mention. We partially covered it last time but it was pretty chaotic.
Or maybe someone even wants to give a brief talk about something they find exciting. Back in the day Jon used to educate us in computational neroscience, which was extremely interesting.
Also, on getting there:
The map in the post is not completely accurate, this is the actual location
Parking on Main St (across from campus, from TMC to ZaZa
In response to
Meetup : Houston, TX
Hopefully, this time Valhalla should be open for, um, follow-up discussions. http://valhalla.rice.edu/
Oh yes, and last time somebody discovered that there's free parking on Main St across from campus (the stretch between Med Center and Hotel ZaZa).
In response to
Meetup : Houston, TX
Hopefully, this time Valhalla should be open for, um, follow-up discussions. http://valhalla.rice.edu/
In response to
The Power of Noise
It seems that in the rock-scissors-paper example the opponent is quite literally an adversarial superintelligence. They are more intelligent than you (at this game), and since they are playing against you, they are adversarial. The RCT example also has a lot of actors with different conflicts of interests, especially money- and career-wise, and some can come pretty close to adversarial.
In response to
Meetup : Houston, TX
Free parking is available in the small streets across Rice Boulevard from the campus (north of it). This is also closer.
The two requirements are that it be on the domain of probabilities (reals on 0-1), and that they nest properly.
Quaternions would be OK as far as the Born rule is concerned - why not? They have a magnitude too. If we run into trouble with them, it's with some other part of QM, not the Born rule (and I'm not entirely confident that we do - I have hazy recollection of a formulation of the Dirac equation using quaternions instead of complex numbers).
Here are some nice arguments about different what-if/why-not scenarios, not fully rigorous but sometimes quite persuasive: http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
No; it's standard to set the threshold for your statistical test for 95% confidence. Studies with larger samples can detect smaller differences between groups with that same statistical power.
How does your choice of threshold (made beforehand) affect your actual data and the information about the actual phenomenon contained therein?