site banner

Small-Scale Question Sunday for June 16, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Are you familiar with the calculus concept of a limit? I will explain it, in case you aren't.

If you start with the number 1 and divide by 2, we get one-half. If we divide by 2 again, we get one-fourth. If we divide by 2 again, we get one-eighth, and so on. It should become apparent the following facts:

  1. No matter how many times we divide by two, the number will always be greater than 0.
  2. No matter how small of a number you give me, e.g. 0.0000001, there is some way we get below it.

On the subjective Bayesian view, collecting evidence is kind of like "dividing by two," and the resulting number is kind of like "the probability that I am wrong."

  1. No matter how much evidence I collect, there is always the possibility that I am wrong.
  2. No matter how confident someone asks me to be, there is some amount of evidence I can collect to justify it.

The blogpost seems to think (1) is a weakness. The standard LW Sequence reply would be 0 and 1 are not Probabilities

(Oh and to go back to calculus, we would say "the limit equals zero")