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/

Reply via email to