LESSWRONG
LW

All of damang's Comments + Replies

Statisticsish Question
damang10

This still doesn't seem right to me. If a paper is the third paper, than the n-3 remaining papers will not have the same thing written on them as the 3d paper, and therefor it is less likely that I will observe whatever the 3d paper was than it was when I started. In the hat with replacement I have an even chance of seeing each one after I have observed it.

It stands to reason that if there were N papers, Y/N of them yeses, if I see and remove a y at the first trial, P(y_2|y_1) = Y-1/N-1 and this now becomes our prior and we use the same rule if we see ano... (read more)

Reply
1Manfred
The reason it seems that way is because you are imagining holding the number of Ys constant. However, if the number of Ys is unknown, you have to figure out what proportion of the cards say Y as you go along, so you get a different result. Maybe an analogy will help. Because you draw the slips of paper in random order, they will not be correlated with each other except through the total percentages that say Y and N. Analogously, if you flip a weighted coin, the flips will not be correlated with each other except through the bias of the coin. Drawing a slip of paper follows the exact same mathematical rules as flipping a weighted coin. And so since Laplace's rule of succession works for the weighted coin, it also works for the slips of paper. Since you're already thinking about keeping the number of Ys fixed, you may object, "but the number of Ys is fixed in the case of the papers and not fixed in the case of the coin, so they must be different." So we can go a step further and imagine someone else flipping the coin, and then writing down what they get. Now when we read the papers, there is a fixed number of Ys, but since it's the same coinflips all along, the probability of seeing Y or N is exactly the same. This demonstrates that having a finite amount of stuff doesn't really matter, what matters is the mathematical rules that stuff follows.
Statisticsish Question
damang00

Yes that is exactly the paradox I was having.

(edit):

Actually, Manfred seems to have solved the issue.

Reply
(Subjective Bayesianism vs. Frequentism) VS. Formalism
damang-10

All in all a decent post I thought. Why can't i see the score?

Reply
3Manfred
A score of "dot" means that the post is quite new, so it isn't showing the score yet.
Bayes Slays Goodman's Grue
damang10

He never said where it was, the problem was to find where the line was on the table.

Reply
3endoself
A better objection would be to ask whether the line chooved, where 'chooved' means 'stayed in the same place before time T and moved to the opposite location afterward'.
0antigonus
To be honest, I don't have a clear sense of what he's saying. However, from a snippet like this: it sounds like he's trying to draw some conclusion from an assumption ("the line doesn't/won't move") that ultimately rests on inductive support. Is that not the case? If so, how does that supposed support not fall victim to the new problem of induction?
damang-20

Are you new man? Check this out: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/A_Human%27s_Guide_to_Words

Potato is proposing a deffenition as an emperical pointer. It means plenty, it means when people think "success", they think "happiness up". He's just saying that the probabilities of the application of the two phrases are correlated to some significant degree.

Reply
2pedanterrific
No, he's dodging the question. There are two definitions under discussion, one (the one potato is proposing, also incidentally the nonstandard one) in which he is by definition correct, another in which he has been proven wrong. He's explicitly attempting to conflate the two:
Things you are supposed to like
damang40

Anybody else drink IPAs just cause they are cool? I know there's someone in here. I admit it: I hated it when I first tried it. And I would have never drank that bitter^10 garbage long enough to like it, if I didn't know it was hip first.

Maybe if it wasn't for people doing things cause they're hip, hard things to like at first with high future payoffs, would not even get as popular as they are today. AND THAT INCLUDES LW! Did you really love LW the first time you came across it? I did honestly fall in love with LW upon first contact, but I was already an ... (read more)

Reply
Nominull220

When promoting the truth, if you value the truth, it is wise to use especially those methods that rely on the truth being true. That way, if you have accidentally misidentified the truth, there is an automatic safety valve.

Reply