Fixed; I was in a hurry, and that didn't affect the answer. All the probabilities I gave were off by that factor of 1/2. No, the prior probability tha...
It's irrelevant (it refers to occurrences after she has answered). But I did intend to take that one out. I did adjust the second one to match what yo...
Yet that is the basis of your argument. You even reiterate it here. And it is part of your circular argument, which you used this non sequitur to dive...
And the only point of mentioning new information, was to show that the information you ignore has meaning. Not to solve the problem or alter the probl...
I most certainly can. You just won't try to understand it. Or answer any question placed before you, if you don't want to accept the answer. So once a...
This is getting tiresome. The answer follows trivially from what I have said before - have you read it? But I will not continue to dangle on your stri...
I agree, with a caveat. The specific details of whether she is woken at a specific point ("day") in the experiment do matter. You can test this in Elg...
In your experiment as you listed it, she isn't put to sleep and isn't woken. Yet you keep describing it as being woken, probably because that language...
You are trying really hard to not understand this, aren't you? Of course, all of this would become moot if you would openly discuss other people's ide...
That is the only thing that does make sense. You are completely ignoring that fact that the experiment that SB sees when she is awake, is not the expe...
If you have so little understanding of probability theory, you should not be trying to explain it to those who do. The (somewhat simplified) basics ar...
There is no theory of when prior probabilities are established. But if there were, it would be fom the start, not before the start. This is the same p...
Which doesn't change the fact that A can be distinguished from B. And the prior probability that the current waking, is a step-1 waking, is 1/2. The p...
You they do. In step 1, she is asked for her credence in the outcome of step 2, not step 3 (which also asks about it). So she must be able to distingu...
I roll two six sided dice. I tell you the resulting sum is an odd number. What is your "credence"="subjective probability" that the dice landed on a 3...
Your question "what is your credence the coin will/did land on Heads" is asking SB to distinguish between the cases where your coin will/did land on H...
But I am. And the reason for the shopping example is pointing out that the four parts that I highlighted and labeled A, B, C, and D each have a prior ...
Tell me if you remember reading this before: In any experiment, measures of probability define a solution, not the experiment itself. The more you rep...
She cannot use ""First Time" and "Second Time" in her solution at all, except in the context of the Law of Total Probability. Because she cannot have ...
Yes, it is. The Law of Total Probability says that Pr(Heads) = Pr(Heads&First Time) + Pr(Heads&Second Time) But "not ruing out" has not significance."...
Okay, I missed that. When she is asked the second time, the "prior probability" of heads is ruled out. That is what is wrong with your solution. You d...
No, you seem to understand the process finally, but your counterargument completely misses the point of the argument. Specifically, you are saying tha...
0 What matters is not the question, but that you are awake for an interview. And in my implementation, you are. After careful double-checking I found ...
And in the original, on Tuesday after Heads, you are also not asked for a credence. The only difference is that in this subset of my implementation, y...
Probability=1 means "is certain." You said the probability of being asked was 1. That means certain. The subject in my implementation is always asked....
What has no significance to the SB problem, is what might be different if event X, or event Y, happens WHEN BOTH ARE CERTAIN TO HAPPEN. X = The prior ...
I'm going to ignore the fact that neither A nor B is woken twice, so this isn't the SB problem. What you seem to mean is that the subject is woken onc...
Yes they are. #1 has two subjects, and #2 has two. In #1, the only subject knows she will be wakened, just not how many times. Her credence in Heads i...
So now it isn't that I never asked about two coins ("You toss two coins and don’t ask them their credence if both land heads. That’s what makes your e...
The original problem is about one coin, not two. Asking about two would make it a different problem. Asking about one is what makes it the same proble...
I do not ask anybody (for) their credence if both coins landed on Heads. I don't ask anybody about coin C2 at all, although it has to be taken into ac...
Um, no. In "my experiment" I will literally and explicitly wake the single subject once if coin C1 lands on Heads, and twice if it lands on Tails. And...
I'm not quite sure why you quoted me in this, as the two version you described do not relate to anything I've said. To reiterate what I have said, let...
You seem to be confused about chickens and eggs, so let me summarize the history: The original problem was formulated by Arnold Zuboff, and was shared...
I'm not going to wade through 14 pages. The answer is 1/3, and it is easy to prove. What is hard, is getting those who don't want that to be the answe...
I'm not sure what your point was, but you can't make a valid one by leaving out half of the quote. The state of the system at that time consisted of f...
This is why I refuse to use betting arguments. Is/does she paid/pay this $1 on both days, or on Wednesday after the experiment is over? In the latter ...
The points of the variation are: There is an "internal" probability experiment that begins when the researchers look at the two coins, and ends when e...
No, the thirder answer is not based on "who am I?" That appears to be just an excuse to reject the logic. In fact, in that post you linked, that quest...
No, I really don't think you do. Or at least, you have shown no evidence of it. The point of the evolution you misinterpret is to determine if the set...
Nobody has said otherwise. (Well, other than "what people do" is completely ambiguous.) What was said, is that Math accepts no absolute truths.The ent...
Did you notice the word "could" also? Anything "could" happen.The sun could explode tomorrow, ending life as we know it. Do you discuss that possibili...
Which is what I have been saying. When the set of axioms lead to an inconsistency, it is the set is that is inconsistent. No one axiom is inconsistent...
There is no evidence of it. What I think, is that you only try to see what contradicts your predetermined idea of universal truth. And then you say th...
That's the first thing you've gotten right. And the fact that you will disagree is why you won't ever understand what I am saying. Axioms don't define...
Do think you understand the point of Axioms? Maybe you need to explain what you think it is. Because it is your arguments that are circular. And Santa...
It is how Mathematics works. Anything that "exists" has to be based on Axioms. Now that's a strawman argument. You need the AoI before you can even tr...
Comments