| Blogs > sam!zdat |
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On January 04 2013 16:06 MidnightGladius wrote: Would it be a cop-out to claim that agents with amnesia don't qualify as rational any more? a clever response. but I don't think anybody's rational so therefore Bayesianism is action philosophy for robots, which is a conclusion I'm ok with | ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
On January 04 2013 16:06 MidnightGladius wrote: Would it be a cop-out to claim that agents with amnesia don't qualify as rational any more? Uh, that wouldn't really change anything because we know it could be Monday when we do the analysis, we are just not sure that it is. Would beg the question of what types of random variables cannot be involved in a problem if we want a reasonable answer by Bayesian methods. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
tl bayesians... what are the odds of that? | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On January 04 2013 16:07 EtherealDeath wrote: From a Bayesian standpoint, you repick. So, no apparently false conclusion. This however makes the Bayesian answer look stupid as fuck. Repick what? Are talking about the modified Monty Hall problem or the mad philosopher? I'm still not following. | ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
On January 04 2013 16:11 hypercube wrote: Repick what? Are talking about the modified Monty Hall problem or the mad philosopher? I'm still not following. Monty Hall. | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
and then you would gather evidence about how it was or wasn't more likely to be different times Or when your girlfriend says "I love you" you would consider the probability of your belief that she was actually sincere in this utterance. | ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
On January 04 2013 16:18 sam!zdat wrote: well, I suppose if you were an orthodox bayesianism you would say that you figured out how many minutes were in a day and divided the credence by that, since you would express the time in a discreet number ways in natural language. and then you would gather evidence about how it was or wasn't more likely to be different times Yea but then you'd calculate the odds and say the probability of being X day was 1/7, which is just as expected and you wouldn't be bleeding money if you bet on it, so amnesia in that sense doesn't fuck you over like it does here. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
On January 04 2013 16:22 sam!zdat wrote: Sorry, I lost track of the topic and was just making fun of bayesian. sorry I'll stop. No don't stop, it's like someone just gave me an e-Bayesian. So do you have a hidden trap somewhere that will put my Bayesian addiction back on track? | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
In that situation you need a probability distribution of what kind of strategy the other agent follows. This is actually what strong poker players do when they meet a new opponent. They make assumptions based on prior experience as well as any information they can get their hands on. It's very much a Bayesian approach but it's hard to quantify because of the number of different variables that goes into it. I mean, I guess you could say that when you have an intelligent agent the Bayesian approach gives no sensible answer if you have no information whatsoever on his strategy. I guess that's true, but that's true for any other view too. In this case the position of the prize is just a distraction. The question is really about the strategy of the host. Specifying that we know nothing about the strategy and then asking for a number that directly depends on it seems disingenuous. | ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
On January 04 2013 16:37 hypercube wrote: In that situation you need a probability distribution of what kind of strategy the other agent follows. This is actually what strong poker players do when they meet a new opponent. They make assumptions based on prior experience as well as any information they can get their hands on. It's very much a Bayesian approach but it's hard to quantify because of the number of different variables that goes into it. I mean, I guess you could say that when you have an intelligent agent the Bayesian approach gives no sensible answer if you have no information whatsoever on his strategy. I guess that's true, but that's true for any other view too. In this case the position of the prize is just a distraction. The question is really about the strategy of the host. Specifying that we know nothing about the strategy and then asking for a number that directly depends on it seems disingenuous. What does that have to do with Bayesian analysis giving a straight up illogical answer in this case? | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On January 04 2013 16:44 EtherealDeath wrote: What does that have to do with Bayesian analysis giving a straight up illogical answer in this case? What's the answer of the Bayesian analysis in your opinion? + Show Spoiler + Have you made an assumption on the host's strategy? Explicitly or implicitly? | ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
On January 04 2013 16:49 hypercube wrote: What's the answer of the Bayesian analysis in your opinion? + Show Spoiler + Have you made an assumption on the host's strategy? Explicitly or implicitly? The explicit is that the host flips a fair coin, and that coin flip which you do not observe determines what the host does. And Bayesian analysis says it is 1/2. But betting 1/2 would lose you money. You can see it easier by modifying the problem such that heads results in a wake amnesia sleep wake etc cycle for an arbitarily large number of days, and that on the last day, you walk free after tea. Then the problem becomes bettering on whether or not you walk free after tea, and if you bet 1/2 you sure as hell are going to be losing lots of money. | ||
|
jrkirby
United States1510 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + I said famous, and mathematician. Day[9] is both, although he isn't famous for his mathematics. | ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
On January 04 2013 16:58 jrkirby wrote: You have to look at it from the perspective of the famous mathematician Sean Plott. If it feels like a funday, then there is 100% chance it's monday. Otherwise it's tuesday. + Show Spoiler + I said famous, and mathematician. Day[9] is both, although he isn't famous for his mathematics. LOL. | ||
|
surfinbird1
Germany999 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21242 Posts
On January 04 2013 16:58 jrkirby wrote: You have to look at it from the perspective of the famous mathematician Sean Plott. If it feels like a funday, then there is 100% chance it's monday. Otherwise it's tuesday. + Show Spoiler + I said famous, and mathematician. Day[9] is both, although he isn't famous for his mathematics. cute  | ||
| ||
|
|
Master's Coliseum
Rogue vs MaxPax
Reynor vs SKillous
Reynor vs Rogue
Fire Grow Cup
BSL: ProLeague
Mihu vs Zhanhun
Online Event
Wardi Open
ForJumy Cup
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
