paul_watcher

Karma: 12

paul_watcher 17 Apr 2011 20:05 UTC
0 points
in reply to: nshepperd’s comment on: The Quantum Arena
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.

paul_watcher 17 Apr 2011 4:56 UTC
0 points
on: The Quantum Arena
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?

paul_watcher 14 Apr 2011 21:31 UTC
1 point
on: First Phoenix, AZ Less Wrong Meetup 4/17 from 12-2pm
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!

paul_watcher 22 Feb 2011 17:10 UTC
3 points
in reply to: lukeprog’s comment on: Statistical Prediction Rules Out-Perform Expert Human Judgments
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.

paul_watcher 8 Feb 2011 22:35 UTC
0 points
in reply to: NancyLebovitz’s comment on: Welcome to Less Wrong! (2010-2011)
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.

Bonne journée.

paul_watcher 17 Jan 2011 3:06 UTC
8 points
on: Welcome to Less Wrong! (2010-2011)
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?