On Sat, 15 May 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 99-05-14 15:55:53 EDT, Jacques Mallah writes: > Ok, now you seem to think that the expected value for the other > box is exp((log(2m)+log(m/2))/2) given that the first box contains m and > given a 50% chance that the second box contains 2m. Ok, that's > unconventional logic all right! Weird conclusions from unrelated > assumptions. >> > > I agree the conclusion is weird. However, As Wei Dai mentioned we need to > revise the concept of probability in the context of the MW. The logarithmic > distribution was just an example. IN FACT THE DISTRIBUTION CAN BE ANYTHING AS > LONG AS IT SATISFIES THE EXPECTATION VALUE = m FOR THE SECOND BOX..

You don't seem to understand: that's NOT how to take an expectation value. It bears little resemblance to the formula for an expectation value, regardless of what "the distribution of m" is. > I didn't know I had "allies" and enemies. I thought we were all friends > striving toward truth. I'm not your enemy, any more than NATO is the enemy of the Serbian people. But I am your opponent in this debate. Neither have you earned my friendship. - - - - - - - Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate "I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/