No posts to display.
<blockquote> Btw, I'm interested in "farming" first because growth rates suddenly increased by two orders of magnitude; by "farming" I mean whatever was the common local-in-time cause of that change. Writing was part of the cascade of changes, but it seems historically implausible to call wr...(read more)
It's not always possible to improve beyond what randomness would yield. Consider, for example, the coin toss predicting game. Or the face-the-firing-squad game.
@michael e sullivan
You are right, my mistake. I was assuming that running, say, 100 trials meant going all the way through a 100-card deck without shuffling. Going back over the description of the problem, I don't see where it explicitly says that the cards are replaced and reshuffled, but that'...(read more)
@A Pickup Artist
I got the point of Eliezer's post, and I don't see why I'm wrong. Could you tell me more specifically than "for the reasons stated" why I'm wrong? And while you're at it, explain to me your optimal strategy in AnneC's variation of the game (you're shot if you get one wrong), assu...(read more)
The assumption behind this post, as AnneC touched on, is that higher scores are linearly correlated to what is perceived as a good outcome. Guessing blue every time will guarantee a worst case <i>and</i> best case outcome of 70%; as such, guessing randomly becomes a much better strategy if the play...(read more)