The resolution criteria for "Is the probability of dying in the Snake Eyes Paradox 1/36?" ("Snake Eyes") state:
For an official resolution we'll write up a proof (or "proof") that the answer is 1/36 and a proof that the answer is ~1/2 (really anything greater than 1/36 would be fine) and then recruit some mathematician(s) to make an independent judgment on which is correct. Or maybe we'll just reach consensus in the comments?
As soon as "Snake Eyes" is resolved, this market will
resolve Yes if it is undisputed that at least one mathematician was recruited and made an independent judgement according to which "Snake Eyes" resolved
resolve No if "Snake Eyes" did not resolve by "official resolution", but by any other means, including consensus in the comments
If "Snake Eyes" is not resolved by 00:52:18 on 1/1/36, this resolves No.
Related questions
๐ Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | แน44 | |
| 2 | แน36 | |
| 3 | แน28 | |
| 4 | แน19 | |
| 5 | แน5 |
@DeadRhino The intention was to get everyone's credence, as well as maybe get some insider info from Daniel whether Snake Eyes will eventually resolve as intended.
Market closing time was set from the start, and as interesting as it would be to keep it running, I think it would be unfair for me to extend it.
By the way: te timing wasn't prescience, I just put a date where I figured I have enough spare time to deal with resolution, had it occured by then.
Thanks for the meta market! (And the contributions to the original market!)
Just to clarify, if (somehow) we actually do reach consensus in the comments, that would count as unofficially resolving it, right? I'm fine with that, it just isn't totally clear in the original blurb. We can say that in the unlikely event of consensus, the Official Resolution was simply not needed.
Also, do you prefer for me to refrain from trading here since I can influence the outcome?
@dreev i suspect consensus may actualy impossible if differing substantive axiomatic basies are allowed.
@ShitakiIntaki I'd love to just spell out those axioms and eliminate such ambiguities. It's implausible to me that anyone is going to claim with a straight face that they bet on NO because they assumed mathematical ultrafinitism or whatever. :)
(Btw, wanna ping me on Discord (dreev) or email (dreeves@beeminder.com) about potentially joining forces on our writeups?)
@dreev Thanks for asking! Everyone can bet on this market.
Clarified the wording for No to more explicitely state that consensus resolution of "Snake Eyes" resolves this market to No.
@ShitakiIntaki @dreev if possible, can we make a group chat so i can assist with writing/proof reading the write up?