Similarly, you seem to suggest that the ratio of value to cost is irrelevant and that all that matters is which is bigger. Wrong again.
Really? So in some circumstances it is rational to take an action for which the expected cost is greater than the expected value?
No, your error was in the other direction. If you look back carefully, you will notice that the ratio is being calculated conditionally on Technology X being developed. Given that the cost is sunk regardless of whether the technology appears, it is possible that SarahC should not act even though the (conditionally) expected return exceeds the cost.
Please no insults, this isn’t you versus me is it?
Shouldn’t be. Nor you against her. I was catty only because I imagined that you were being catty. If you were not, then I surely apologize.
I didn’t say what SarahC should do with the probabilities once she had them. All I said was that they were pretty much all was relevant to the question of whether she should donate. Unless I didn’t, in which case I meant to.
No, your error was in the other direction. If you look back carefully, you will notice that the ratio is being calculated conditionally on Technology X being developed. Given that the cost is sunk regardless of whether the technology appears, it is possible that SarahC should not act even though the (conditionally) expected return exceeds the cost.
Shouldn’t be. Nor you against her. I was catty only because I imagined that you were being catty. If you were not, then I surely apologize.
I edited my post before I saw your response :-P
I’m sorry, I don’t see any edits that matter for the logic of the thread. What am I missing?
OK, my mistake.
I didn’t say what SarahC should do with the probabilities once she had them. All I said was that they were pretty much all was relevant to the question of whether she should donate. Unless I didn’t, in which case I meant to.