## Posts

Comment by sebmathguy on Model of unlosing agents · 2014-08-03T06:12:17.262Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

There's actually no need to settle for finite truncations of a decision agent. The unlosing decision function (on lotteries) can be defined in first-order logic, and your proof that there are finite approximations of a decision function is sufficient to use the compactness theorem to produce a full model.

Comment by sebmathguy on Open Thread, April 27-May 4, 2014 · 2014-05-02T01:19:44.711Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I've just made an enrollment deposit at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and I'm wondering if any other rationalists are going, and if so, would they be interested in sharing a dorm?

Comment by sebmathguy on Useful Questions Repository · 2013-07-28T00:50:46.606Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Comment by sebmathguy on The difference between Determinism & Pre-determination · 2013-07-26T10:59:11.756Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Perhaps instead of immediately giving up and concluding that it's impossible to reason correctly with MWI, it would be better to take the born rule at face value as a predictor of subjective probability.

Comment by sebmathguy on Introducing Familiar, a quantified reasoning assistant (feedback sought!) · 2013-07-24T07:35:22.888Z · score: 6 (8 votes) · LW · GW

Comment by sebmathguy on The idiot savant AI isn't an idiot · 2013-07-23T06:11:10.333Z · score: -1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

The AI is a program. Running on a processor. With an instruction set. Reading the instructions from memory. These instructions are its programming. There is no room for acausal magic here. When the goals get modified, they are done so by a computer, running code.

Comment by sebmathguy on Universal Law · 2013-07-09T00:36:19.925Z · score: 9 (8 votes) · LW · GW

Consider indicating that your post contains spoilers.

Comment by sebmathguy on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 19, chapter 88-89 · 2013-07-02T04:39:01.443Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Got it. I was previously having difficulty making that belief pay rent.

Comment by sebmathguy on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 19, chapter 88-89 · 2013-07-02T04:15:34.788Z · score: -1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I've also heard that for soldiers, seeing one more death or injury can be the tipping point into PTSD.

Am I missing something, or does this follow trivially from PTSD being binary and the set of possible body counts being the natural numbers?

Comment by sebmathguy on An attempt at a short no-prerequisite test for programming inclination · 2013-07-02T04:05:08.493Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I'm a new user with -1 karma who therefore can't vote, so I'll combat censorship bias like this:

Moderate programmer, correct

Yes

Comment by sebmathguy on Maximizing Financial Utility and Frugality · 2013-06-28T03:45:15.714Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

but due to hedonistic adaptation, you will come out no less unhappy.

Did you mean "no more unhappy."?

Edit: Formatting of quote.

Comment by sebmathguy on How should Eliezer and Nick's extra \$20 be split · 2013-06-18T00:40:44.583Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Yes. Woops.

Comment by sebmathguy on How should Eliezer and Nick's extra \$20 be split · 2013-06-18T00:12:58.308Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Ok, this is a definition discrepancy. The or that I'm using is (A or B) <-> not( (not A) and (not B)).

Edit: I was wrong for a different reason.

Comment by sebmathguy on How should Eliezer and Nick's extra \$20 be split · 2013-06-17T20:47:55.920Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

If p + q = 1, then p(A or B) = 1. The equivalence statement about A and B that we're updating can be stated as (A or B) iff (A and B). Since probability mass is conserved, it has to go somewhere, and everything but A and B have probability 0, it has to go to the only remaining proposition, which is g(p, q), resulting in g(p, q) = 1. Stating this as p+q was an attempt to find something from which to further generalize.

Comment by sebmathguy on How should Eliezer and Nick's extra \$20 be split · 2013-06-14T19:01:38.500Z · score: -1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

My first reaction to the second question is to consider the case in which p + q = 1. Then, the answer is clearly that g(p, q) = p + q. I suspect that this is incomplete, and that further relevant information needs to be specified for the answer to be well-defined.