5 ms·
(I'm the author) I think there's an annoying thing where by saying "hey, here's this neat problem, what's the answer" I've made you much more likely to actuall
by eieio 8mo ago
(I'm the author)
I think there's an annoying thing where by saying "hey, here's this neat problem, what's the answer" I've made you much more likely to actually get the answer!
What I really wanted to do was transfer the experience of writing a simulation for a related problem, observing this result, assuming I had a bug in my code, and then being delighted when I did the math. But unfortunately I don't know how to transfer that experience over the internet :(
(to be clear, I'm totally happy you wrote out the probabilities and got it right! Just expressing something I was thinking about back when I wrote this blog)
- Aerroon 8mo agoI, erroneously, thought that "when Alice and Bob agree there's a 96% chance of them being correct, then surely you can leverage this to get above the 80% chance. What if we trust them both when they agree and trust Alice when they disagree?" Did some (erroneous) napkin math and went to write a simulation. As I was writing the simulation I realized my error. I finished the simulation anyway, just because, and it has the expected 80% result on both of them. My error: when we trust "both" we're also trusting Alice, which means that my case was exactly the same as just trusting Alice. PS as I was writing the simulation I did a small sanity test of 9 rolls: I rolled heads 9 times in a row (so I tried it again with 100 million and it was a ~50-50 split). There goes my chance of winning the lottery!