This series is great. But, I'm having a little trouble understanding the fourth diagram, the one with the folded configuration space.
I sort of get it: the original configuration space distinguished between two particles, which is wrong, so in reality only half of the configuration space's area matters when it comes to information. But I don't get how that means you delete the probability from half of the space. Why is it wrong to make the space symmetrical across the diagonal line? It seems a little arbitrary to me; is there a physical reason, or is this a standard thing to do?
Also, I don't get why "this identity cuts down the size of a 2-particle configuration space by 1/2, cuts down the size of a 3-particle configuration space by 1/6, and so on." What's the relationship from 1/2 to 1/6? What comes after that? Why isn't it 1/2 to 1/4 to 1/8?
It's a shame that I'm not in Phoenix at this time. Maybe in the summer I'll be able to. Anyways, good luck!
Thank you for this article. Some people may react to finding that their professional opinion be less accurate than a simple formula, but I get excited instead. It's such a great opportunity to become more accurate, with such comparatively little effort! I'm particularly interested in the medical SPRs; I aim to be a doctor, and if these will help me be better than the average doctor in many cases, then so be it. I suspect that I'll have to use them secretly.
Thank you both for the answers. I don't have much time right now to think about this, but I think I'll comment in the article itself. It's pretty specific.
Hello. Please call me Paul Watcher. Watcher is not my real name, but I do know someone named Watcher, and it is what I've been doing. I'm a medical student.
I've recently finished all the sequences (except the luminosity one still), and my head still hurts. I'm really happy I found them, though. It was painful, but I call myself better now.
I'm now relearning as much as I can. I'm trying to use divia's Anki deck to memorize the sequences: basic things worth memorizing. I still have yet to actually understand lot of what I read here, so I hope that helps.
I registered because I'm still confused about some things, which I hope will get answered in whatever general discussion thread I post them in. I don't really anticipate participating much more (though I'm not too confident on that).
Nevertheless, I am pleased to meet you all.
Edit: I have a question. Let's say that I'm confused about something in, say, Conservation of Expected Evidence. Should I ask my questions on it in comments of the article itself, or in the open thread of this month, or somewhere else?
Thanks, that explains the 1/2, 1/6, etc. thing. So 1/24 is indeed next.
I still don't get the folding thing (vs. making the picture diagonally symmetrical) very much, but I kind of get it, so I'll leave it be.