I wonder what percentage of self-proclaimed one-boxers are actually one-boxers at heart, as opposed to merely trying to trick future superintelligent Newcomb organizers.
Fair enough, I was afraid so. Is there somewhere (preferably easily accessible, e.g. online) where I can get an overview explanation? I read the Wikipedia entry, but that didn’t really explain *why* NP is interesting for any of those things, how NP might tell us something useful.
-
-
The introductory chapter to this book does roughly what you ask for: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/newcombs-problem/54870C03D3F8544261A7D9781D271F85 … (Note, however, that there is reasonable room for disagreement of whether or not NP actually IS interesting and useful.)
-
Alternatively, there is some hope that this talk will shed light on your question: https://www.chalmers.se/sv/institutioner/math/kalendarium/Sidor/Kollokvium200217.aspx …
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.