1 files changed, 4 insertions, 4 deletions

diff --git a/content/entry/newcombs-paradox-resolved.md b/content/entry/newcombs-paradox-resolved.md
index a5928f0..1c5d3b2 100644
--- a/content/entry/newcombs-paradox-resolved.md
+++ b/content/entry/newcombs-paradox-resolved.md
@@ -16,8 +16,8 @@ Here's the problem from Wikipedia ([CC BY-SA 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/li
 > There is an infallible predictor, a player, and two boxes designated A and B. The player is given a choice between taking only box B, or taking both boxes A and B. The player knows the following:
 > Box A is clear, and always contains a visible $1,000.
 > Box B is opaque, and its content has already been set by the predictor: If the predictor has predicted the player will take both boxes A and B, then box B contains nothing. If the predictor has predicted that the player will take only box B, then box B contains $1,000,000.
-> 
-> 
+>
+>
 > The player does not know what the predictor predicted or what box B contains while making the choice.
 
 ## The Paradox
@@ -36,13 +36,13 @@ As I suggested in the "telescoping method", we're going to break down the abstra
 > Let p be the probability that the predictor is correct. Then:
 > 1000000p is the expected value if you choose only box B.
 > 1000000(1-p) + 1000 is the expected value if you choose both boxes.
-> 
+>
 > 1000000p > 1000000(1-p) + 1000
 > -> 1000p > 1000(1-p) + 1
 > -> 1000p > 1000 - 1000p + 1
 > -> 2000p > 1001
 > -> p > 0.5005
-> 
+>
 > Therefore the expected value if you choose only box B is greater than the expected value if you choose both boxes so long as the predictor is over 50.05% accurate, slightly better than a coin toss.
 
 An AI system that can predict slightly better than a fair coin toss could create the Newcomb Paradox. Given what AI is already capable of, this is a realistic scenario. It also shows that the infallible predictor isn't the root cause of the paradox.