Posts
Comments
I've told a few people Lsusr's fear heuristic.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070822013154/http://www.math.utah.edu/~pa/math/polya.html
Archive link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070822013154/http://www.math.utah.edu/~pa/math/polya.html
I'll repost my comment from Substack, with the better formatting from LessWrong.
Yay, Toki Pona and Rationalist Taboo. Thank you.
I don't know Toki Pona. I'm using Wiktionary and Google to understand the words, and mostly ignoring grammar.I think it would make more sense to Toki Ponise all the proper nouns, and use links or footnotes to clarify the weird ones.
Taboo -> musi Tapu, and Hasbro -> kulupu Asopo?Wiktionary says: "Using pi followed by one word is proscribed."
"ma ale en mun en kili telo li jo e selo sama."
I don't understand this sentence."tenpo suno" feels weird to me, like that should be the word for 'year' rather than 'day'. Google says it's the standard. I think 'period of the large fluctuation in sunlight' would translate very well ('jule' means 'vibrate'). It might not work out for the poles, though. Similar for "tenpo sike" later.
This was a really good choice of essay. Thank you."Awistote"
Not proper, because of the "st". 'Awitote' works. 'Ewitato' sounds like how I've heard it. 'Awitoteli' might be more like how he pronounced it. 'Awitotili' can sound like it has 'totally', which is funny to say."Sokatesi"
This one works, but is also weird. I think 'Sakati' sounds like how I've heard it. 'Sokati' is closer to the Greek."jan Awistote li toke e ni:"
I can't find 'toke'. Did you mean 'toki'?"Alebe"
Not proper, because of the "b". Maybe 'Alapa'?
I'd recommend making up new stock names rather than translating the old ones. Toki Pona's alphabet starts with a, then e. So maybe 'Ana' and 'Esa', from Frozen.
(I think this alphabet should be called 'ane'. 'Alphabet' comes from the first two Greek letters. Esperanto spells vowels with themselves, but 'ae' is illegal, so I add a no.)"kasi kiwen suli"
I think 'palisa' makes more sense here than "kiwen". Just 'kasi suli' would also work well."jan Alebe: 'kasi kiwen suli li kama anpa. ni li pali e kalama. jan Pewi: 'kasi kiwen suli li kama anpa. ni li pali ala e kalama.'"
I don't think this works without context. You forgot to say that the tree is alone."jan Alebe: 'ni li pali e kon tawa.'"
This could describe either interpretation. You could use 'jule' here too."nasin sewi mute li sama lukin"
Why'd you use 'sama'? 'Ante' makes more sense to me.I liked this post. Thank you.
Wow! Toki Pona is very easy to learn. Thank you.
Any feedback or responses for me?
Not sure why this was downvoted.
I guess it's unproductive.
What was this called before?
How/does this square with https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.07404?
IIUC, Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem was overinterpreted, and a different operationalization of consistency is provable.
I talked to Mihály Bárász about that, and he didn't think it was crazy.
Sin(floor(2pi*10^n)) is never the same sign as n, for integer n.
Too simple, though.
I can see the dancers spinning in different directions.
https://www.lesswrong.com/s/9bvAELWc8y2gYjRav/p/C8nEXTcjZb9oauTCW
?
The best way to draw a boundary around the high-probability things, without worrying about simplicity, is to just write down all your observations; they have probability 1 of having been observed, and everything else has probability 0.
This boundary is way too complicated; you've seen many things.
A finite-sized fractal in n_space still has measurable n_volume.
Its surface (n-1)_volume might be infinite, but we don't care about that.
Does that make sense?
Thank you.
Cognition -> Convergence -> Corroboration
Now they've written the post on this.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fEvCxNte6FKSRNFvN/3c-s-a-recipe-for-mathing-concepts
Hyperidealized art wouldn't be banned. There'd be much less of it, but not none.
It'd also be produced by much better artists.
I think you'd probably end up consuming hyperidealized art, too.
You'd notice that you preferred the more idealized art, among what you consumed, then you'd talk to a psychologist or something and they'd tell you that you'd probably be fine with the cognitohazardous stuff.
Why has my comment been given so much karma?
To get more comfortable with this formalism, we will translate three important voting criteria.
You translated four criteria.
Scott Alexander wrote some rationalish music a decade ago.
youtube.com/qraikoth
CronoDAS has uploaded a song, though it's not much rationalist.
youtube.com/CronoDAS
Was over two years ago.
Scott Alexander wrote some music a decade ago.
"Mary's Room" and "Somewhere Prior To The Rainbow" are most likely to make you cry again.
"Mathematical Pirate Shanty", if you can cry laughing.
Here, I'd plot difference from gravitation at sea level.
I've never heard the US civil war described this way.
Thank you.
=
Should be '≠'.
taught
Should be 'taut'.
I've learned the maths before.
I think maybe I have no idea what kinetic energy is.
kinetic energy scales with the square of the speed
Why is this?
Ideally you'd try to have a separate bakery with reversed gender-roles.
I probably can't go to the October meetup, due to coincidence. How do I unRSVP on Meetup?
Unrelated, I still think I have a good chance of making it next time.
Thank you. I was probably wrong.
In most examples, there's no common knowledge. In most examples, information is only transmitted one way. This does not allow for Aumann agreement. One side makes one update, then stops.
If someone tells me their assigned probability for something, that turns my probability very close to theirs, if I think they've seen nearly strictly better evidence about it than I have. I think this explains most of your examples, without referencing Aumann.
I think I don't understand what you mean. What's Aumann agreement? How's it a useful concept?
I thought the surprising thing about Aumann agreement was that ideal agents with shared priors will come to agree even if they can't intentionally exchange information, and can see only the other's assigned probability. [I checked Wikipedia; with common knowledge of each other's probabilistic belief about something, ideal agents with shared priors have the same belief. There's something about dialogues, but Aumann didn't prove that. I was wrong.]
Your post seems mostly about exchange of information. It doesn't matter which order you find your evidence, so ideal agents with shared priors that can exchange everything they've seen will always come to agree.
I don't think this requires understanding Aumann's theorem.
Is this wrong, or otherwise unimportant?
Thank you for responding.
It's possible for your team to lose five points, thereby giving the other team five points.
If the other team loses five points, then you gain five points.
Why is it not possible for the other team to lose five points without anything else happening? Where does the asymmetry come from?
It's
-25 -20 -5 0 20 25.
Why isn't it
-25 -20 -5 0 5 20 25?
- (-25) lose points and other team gains points
- (-20) other team gains points
- (-5) lose points and other team gets nothing
- (0) nobody gets anything
- (20) gain points
- (25) other team loses points and you gain points
Why no (+5)?
Maths is incomplete. Inconsistency isn't proven.
Is this wrong?
X is not a thing that can be other things
Y is not actually a thing that another thing can be
Why the "actually"?
I probably won't go to this.
I probably will go to the October 21st version. Is there some way I should formally communicate that?
Probably there should be a way to be more specific than "MAYBE".
I had to Google "RSVP".
Where should I complain these to?
I no longer think it makes sense to clam up when you can't figure out how you originally came around to the view which you now hold
Either you can say "I came to this conclusion at some point, and I trust myself", or you should abandon the belief.
You don't need to know how or why your brain happened to contain the belief; you just need to know your own justification for believing it now. If you can't sufficiently justify your belief to yourself (even through things like "My-memory-of-myself-from-a-few-minutes-ago thinks it's likely" or "First-order intuition thinks it's likely"), you should abandon it (unless you're bad at this, which is probably not the case for most people who might try it).
From my perspective, I just had an original thought. If there's any writing about something related, or if someone else has something to add or subtract, I would probably very much like to read it.
by far the best impact-to-community health ratio ever
What does this mean?
When I read "Extravert", I felt happy related to the uncommon spelling, which I also prefer.
Is this shared reality?
One-box only occurs in simulations, while two-box occurs in and out of simulations.
If I one-box in simulations, then Omega puts $0 in the first box, and I can't one-box.
If I two-box in simulations, then Omega puts $100 in the first box, so I may be in a simulation or not.
One-boxing kills me, so I two-box.
Either I've made a mistake, or you have. Where is it?
Thank you for the comparison.
Thank you.
Paul Graham says Robert Morris is never wrong.
He does this by qualifying statements (ex. "I think"), not by saying fewer things.
"Your loved one has passed on"
I'm not sure I've ever used a euphemism (I don't know what a euphemism is).
When should I?
Pretend-obfuscation prevents common knowledge.
I don't understand.
I dislike when fish suffer because I feel sad, and because other people want fish to not suffer for moral reasons.
A line is just a helix that doesn't curve. It works the same for any helix; it would be a great coincidence, to get a line.