1967/12/01 by Ian Hacking · 5 citations
Decision Sciences · Mathematics · #Benford’s Law and Fraud Detection #Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics #Mathematical and Theoretical Analysis
paper · doi:10.1086/288169
openalex publication_date 1967/12/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/16
A person required to risk money on a remote digit of π would, in order to comply fully with the theory [of personal probability] have to compute that digit, though this would really be wasteful if the cost of computation were more than the prize involved. For the postulates of the theory imply that you should behave in accordance with the logical implications of all that you know. Is it possible to improve the theory in this respect, making allowance within it for the cost of thinking, or would that entail paradox?