A: Let’s taboo “rational” and replace it with math instead. What I meant was that two-boxing yields more money. B: Oh, what I meant was that one-boxing yields more money. A: We don’t disagree about what “more money” means, do we? B: Don’t think so. Okay, so...
It refers to the math that can be filled in on demand (more or less). In Alicorn’s dialog, the intended math is not clear from the context, and indeed it seems that there was no specific intended math.
A: Let’s taboo “rational” and replace it with math instead. What I meant was that two-boxing yields more money.
B: Oh, what I meant was that one-boxing yields more money.
A: We don’t disagree about what “more money” means, do we?
B: Don’t think so. Okay, so...
I’m not getting your point, and also “yields” is not math...
“Recommends” is math?
It refers to the math that can be filled in on demand (more or less). In Alicorn’s dialog, the intended math is not clear from the context, and indeed it seems that there was no specific intended math.
I disagree. Alicorn’s version is more mathematically meaningful, to my mind, than WeiDai’s. But to return to the original problem:
A. Two-boxing yields more money than would be yielded by counterfactually one-boxing.
B. Taboo “counterfactually”. …
Sorry, I thought it would be clear that it just means [the CDT formula] = ‘two-box’.