4 ms·

> The coin flip is just as much a problem of ignorance as the boxing match. Would you say that “the next coin flip” is _just_ as much a problem of ignorance as

by kgwgk 4y ago

> The coin flip is just as much a problem of ignorance as the boxing match. Would you say that “the next coin flip” is _just_ as much a problem of ignorance as “the previous coin flip”? You may assign the same probability 1/2 to “getting heads is the next flip” and to “having got heads in the last flip” but these cases are not completely equivalent and there are practical differences.

inimino 4y ago
I might be missing the distinction you're making here. If you mean if the flip has already occurred, but the result was concealed (for example, the coin is under my hand but I have not looked at it), since my state of knowledge is the same as before the flip, I'd say it's equivalent.
- kgwgk 4y ago
  "the next flip" We're going to flip a coin now. Before the flip, I give you the choice between a) $1 for sure and b) $10 if it comes heads "the previous flip" We have just flipped a coin. After the flip, I give you the choice between a) $1 for sure and b) $10 if it came heads Do you think that these scenarios are equivalent - i.e. is your choice a) or b) the same?
  - inimino 4y ago
    If you know the result of the flip, then no. Otherwise, yes (b for both).
    - kgwgk 4y ago
      The coin flip is different from the boxing match in that sense. Your ignorance regarding the former is the same as everyone else’s - while for the latter others may be better informed.
      - jbay808 4y ago
        For sure! I also wouldn't bet on a coin flip offered by a guy standing next to a 500-kg servo-driven coin-tossing machine. But their confidence in offering me that bet is also useful information to update my probabilities. (This is also why poker is not purely a game of chance.) Probabilities are subjective, so we can always account for other people having more information and different probabilities than we do ourselves. Unfortunately the language of probability does not communicate this very explicitly, so it's easy to forget. With, say, radioactive decay, yes there's no chance anyone has less ignorance than we do, so we can at least be certain the result will be fair. (I don't think we are in any disagreement about this, though).

by kgwgk 4y ago

inimino 4y ago

I might be missing the distinction you're making here. If you mean if the flip has already occurred, but the result was concealed (for example, the coin is under my hand but I have not looked at it), since my state of knowledge is the same as before the flip, I'd say it's equivalent.

kgwgk 4y ago
"the next flip" We're going to flip a coin now. Before the flip, I give you the choice between a) $1 for sure and b) $10 if it comes heads "the previous flip" We have just flipped a coin. After the flip, I give you the choice between a) $1 for sure and b) $10 if it came heads Do you think that these scenarios are equivalent - i.e. is your choice a) or b) the same?
- inimino 4y ago
  If you know the result of the flip, then no. Otherwise, yes (b for both).
  - kgwgk 4y ago
    The coin flip is different from the boxing match in that sense. Your ignorance regarding the former is the same as everyone else’s - while for the latter others may be better informed.
    - jbay808 4y ago
      For sure! I also wouldn't bet on a coin flip offered by a guy standing next to a 500-kg servo-driven coin-tossing machine. But their confidence in offering me that bet is also useful information to update my probabilities. (This is also why poker is not purely a game of chance.) Probabilities are subjective, so we can always account for other people having more information and different probabilities than we do ourselves. Unfortunately the language of probability does not communicate this very explicitly, so it's easy to forget. With, say, radioactive decay, yes there's no chance anyone has less ignorance than we do, so we can at least be certain the result will be fair. (I don't think we are in any disagreement about this, though).