The question was never about what that particular piece of code did. It is about whether that code is a good interpretation of the problem?
But for every tails flip, SB is awoken twice (once on Monday then again on Tuesday), so the probable number of wakeups per experiment is 1.5, therefore P(B) = 1.5
A halfer would question a probability that is >1. They would deny that the number of wakeups is important. They would point out that the answer would be 1⁄2 if asked after the experiment is over.
They would claim that the outcomes you should assign probability to are “heads” and “tails”. It is about whether we should assign probability to observer moments, or to worlds that contain many observers.
The question was never about what that particular piece of code did. It is about whether that code is a good interpretation of the problem?
A halfer would question a probability that is >1. They would deny that the number of wakeups is important. They would point out that the answer would be 1⁄2 if asked after the experiment is over.
They would claim that the outcomes you should assign probability to are “heads” and “tails”. It is about whether we should assign probability to observer moments, or to worlds that contain many observers.