LESSWRONG
LW

All of paul_watcher's Comments + Replies

The Quantum Arena
paul_watcher00

Thanks, that explains the 1/2, 1/6, etc. thing. So 1/24 is indeed next.

I still don't get the folding thing (vs. making the picture diagonally symmetrical) very much, but I kind of get it, so I'll leave it be.

Reply
0karadril
Maybe you don't just make the picture diagonally symmetrical because then if you would integrate over all the probabilities you would get 200% (because you represent every situation twice)?
The Quantum Arena
paul_watcher00

This series is great. But, I'm having a little trouble understanding the fourth diagram, the one with the folded configuration space.

I sort of get it: the original configuration space distinguished between two particles, which is wrong, so in reality only half of the configuration space's area matters when it comes to information. But I don't get how that means you delete the probability from half of the space. Why is it wrong to make the space symmetrical across the diagonal line? It seems a little arbitrary to me; is there a physical reason, or is this a... (read more)

Reply
1nshepperd
For a three particle configuration space, you could imagine tagging each of the three particles as "particle A", "particle B" and "particle C". So for a classical configuration with a particle at each of the positions X, Y and Z, you would have six ways of assigning the particles to the positions -- if we represent them as (particle at X, particle at Y, particle at Z), we've got (A, B, C), (A, C, B), (B, A, C), (B, C, A), (C, A, B), (C, B, A). In general, for n particles, the number of ways is just the factorial n! (the number of permutations of n elements), which you may have guessed by now. But of course in quantum configuration space there's only one way of having "particles at X, Y and Z", so we cut down the space by 1/(n!).
First Phoenix, AZ Less Wrong Meetup 4/17 from 12-2pm
paul_watcher10

It's a shame that I'm not in Phoenix at this time. Maybe in the summer I'll be able to. Anyways, good luck!

Reply
0Danny_Hintze
Awesome! See you then!
Statistical Prediction Rules Out-Perform Expert Human Judgments
paul_watcher30

Thank you for this article. Some people may react to finding that their professional opinion be less accurate than a simple formula, but I get excited instead. It's such a great opportunity to become more accurate, with such comparatively little effort! I'm particularly interested in the medical SPRs; I aim to be a doctor, and if these will help me be better than the average doctor in many cases, then so be it. I suspect that I'll have to use them secretly.

Reply
Welcome to Less Wrong! (2010-2011)
paul_watcher00

Thank you both for the answers. I don't have much time right now to think about this, but I think I'll comment in the article itself. It's pretty specific.

Bonne journée.

Reply
Welcome to Less Wrong! (2010-2011)
paul_watcher80

Hello. Please call me Paul Watcher. Watcher is not my real name, but I do know someone named Watcher, and it is what I've been doing. I'm a medical student.

I've recently finished all the sequences (except the luminosity one still), and my head still hurts. I'm really happy I found them, though. It was painful, but I call myself better now.

I'm now relearning as much as I can. I'm trying to use divia's Anki deck to memorize the sequences: basic things worth memorizing. I still have yet to actually understand lot of what I read here, so I hope that helps.

I re... (read more)

Reply
8LucasSloan
If you have a question, and don't particularly care if others after you see the answer, asking in the Open Thread probably will get more people looking at your question. On the other hand, people do look at the recent comment page, and try to answer questions, so I can't say that's a bad option. If it's not time critical, I'd ask in the article, then, if no one answers, link to your question from the open thread.