What is the answer to the sleeping beauty problem? I understand

Two thirds of her interviews are on tails, and one third are on heads. So she should say "there is a one in three chance that you flipped head".

>>7700483
1/3 of the time she is woken it will be heads. 2/3 of the time she is woken it will be tails. Really not that hard to get and I don't know why people who understand Bayesian probability have problems with this.

>>7700584
>>7700593
This is the position I started out on, too.

Actually, I am now having a hard time considering the halfer position, but a few weeks ago I was. Fuck. I don't even remember the argument that got me.

Ok, as of right now I can only consider the Bayesian answer correct.

Then my question morphs to: Why does the monte hall problem have a definitive answer listed on wikipedia but this one doesn't? is it all politics or is there something deeper?

>>7700483
Heads she wakes up and is interviewed.
Tails she is woken up twice and interviewed.

It doesn't matter if she is woken up 1000 times for tails - they only flipped the fucking coin one time and she has no memory of being woken up before, nor does she have any way to tell what day it is.

She should state that her credence (faggy way of saying how much she believes they flipped heads) is 1/2.

This isn't hard. They flipped a coin ONE time, the chances of heads or tails is basically 50/50. This problem might actually be interesting if when they flipped tails they flipped again and continued on until they reached heads.

Define "credence."

This "paradox" uses a bit of a slippery slope kind of fallacy. People identify with the Sleeping Beauty, thinking "does it really make a difference if I'm wrong once or wrong twice about the same thing, with no continuity between the same two-wrongness?" But then they're asked to "calculate" the "probability" of the thing. What calculation? What probability? You're entirely in the air, logistically, and you're asked to stake a claim somewhere. Obviously, as a human (who has not encounter/thought through this thing before), you say 50:50 on the whole thing and cast ot aside. But does that 50:50 really mean anything? In a world where infinity tests are performed twice as many of one is enacted than the other. But that's stupid and stale.

Mathematically, it's all very clear and well defined. There are X as many instances of the beauty waking up and thus the probability of it having been Y coin toss it 1/3rd as much. But no one cares about the mathematics and the intuition has no substance. So who the fuck cares?

>>7700622
autism personified truly

>>7700625
Drunkenness, personified, maybe. Jerk.

The wording is "what is your credence now for the proposition that our coin landed Heads?". So it's refering to the outcome of the cointoss, which is clearly 50/50.

The confusion stems from the fact that a reasonable interpretation of the question is "what is your credence now for the proposition that you will observer our coin showing Heads". In which case the probability is 1/3.

>>7700688
woah

I just got redpilled