LESSWRONG
LW

answer
921160
Message
Dialogue
Subscribe

Posts

Sorted by New

Wikitag Contributions

Comments

Sorted by
Newest
No wikitag contributions to display.
New Monthly Thread: Bragging
answer12y70

Impressive, I didn't think it could be automatized (and even if it could, that it could go so many digits before hitting a computational threshold for large exponentials). My only regret is that I have but 1 upvote to give.

Reply
New Monthly Thread: Bragging
answer12y80

In the interest of challenging my mental abilities, I used as few resources as possible (and I suck at writing code). It took fewer than 3^^^3 steps, thankfully.

Reply
New Monthly Thread: Bragging
answer12y60

Partially just to prove it is a real number with real properties, but mostly because I wanted a challenge and wasn't getting it from my current math classes (I'm currently in college, majoring in math). As much as I'd like to say it was to outdo the AI at math (since calculators can't do anything with the number 3^^^3, even take its mod 2), I had to use a calculator for all but the last 3 digits.

Reply
New Monthly Thread: Bragging
answer12y70

I started with some iterated powers of 3 and tried to find patterns. For instance, 3 to an odd (natural number) power is always 3 mod 4, and 3 to the power of (a natural number that's 3 mod 4) always has a 7 in the one's place.

Reply
New Monthly Thread: Bragging
answer12y290

I solved the last 8 digits of 3^^^3 (they're ...64,195,387). Take that ultrafinitists!

Reply
More "Stupid" Questions
answer12y10

Hmm. "Three to the 'three to the pentation of three plus two'-ation of three". Alternatively, "big" would also work.

Reply
More "Stupid" Questions
answer12y40

"Three to the pentation of three".

Reply
Countess and Baron attempt to define blackmail, fail
answer12y30

Although making precommitments to enforce threats can be self-destructive, it seems the only reason they were for the baron is because he didn't account for a 3rd outcome, rather than just the basic set {you do what I want, you do what I don't want} and 3rd outcomes kept happening.

Reply
Why do theists, undergrads, and Less Wrongers favor one-boxing on Newcomb?
answer12y80

Newcomb's problem does happen (and has happened) in real life. Also, omega is trying to maximize his stake rather than minimize yours; he made a bet with alpha with much higher stakes than the $1,000,000. Not to mention newcomb's problem bears some vital semblance to the prisoners' dilemma, which occurs in real life.

Reply
Newcomb's Problem and Regret of Rationality
answer12y40

Ok, so we do agree that it can be rational to one-box when predicted by a human (if they predict based upon factors you control such as your facial cues). This may have been a misunderstanding between us then, because I thought you were defending the computationalist view that you should only one-box if you might be an alternate you used in the prediction.

Reply
Load More
No posts to display.