Live data from Hacker News

Seven Puzzles You Think You Must Not Have Heard Correctly (2006) [pdf]

math.dartmouth.edu

101–110 of 146 posts

Re: Seven Puzzles You Think You Must Not Have Heard Correctly (2006) [pdf]

#101
post #55

Another very counterintuitive (for me) problem: how do you do better that break even in the following game: 'A' chooses two distinct integers, writes them on slips of paper and holds one out in each hand in a fist. You choose a hand and reveal a number. You must then guess whether the other number is higher or lower than the revealed one, winning $1 if you guess right and losing $1 otherwise.

This is the same as discussed by John Baez and others at https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2015/07/20/the-game-of-... right? (spoilers!)

Re: Seven Puzzles You Think You Must Not Have Heard Correctly (2006) [pdf]

#102
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does this work with probability 2/3 then? https://jsfiddle.net/q4qbewp1/

Because of the particular distributions that you happen to have chosen. Alice doesn't have to pick uniformly at random. Since 0^p=0 and 1^p=1 we can experiment with different distributions by using "Math.pow(Math.random(),p)" in place of "Math.random()". For example: var prior = Math.pow(Math.random(),1); var hand1 = Math.pow(Math.random(),10); var hand2 = Math.pow(Math.random(),10); > Win probability: 0.5757182 and…

> the win probability will always be >0.5 so long as the "prior" probability distribution has a nonzero probability of being between Alice's two numbers.

Wow. This is the key piece of information that makes the problem interesting, IMO. That's quite unintuitive.

If you know anything at all about how your opponent chooses numbers, you win in the long term.

Re: Seven Puzzles You Think You Must Not Have Heard Correctly (2006) [pdf]

#103
post #55

Another very counterintuitive (for me) problem: how do you do better that break even in the following game: 'A' chooses two distinct integers, writes them on slips of paper and holds one out in each hand in a fist. You choose a hand and reveal a number. You must then guess whether the other number is higher or lower than the revealed one, winning $1 if you guess right and losing $1 otherwise.

Is the range of integers limited? Does she choose them randomly? If the range isn't limited, hoe would we even define a normalized probability distribution?

*how

Re: Seven Puzzles You Think You Must Not Have Heard Correctly (2006) [pdf]

#104
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of this: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,... What comes next? 10 if it's the sequence of natural numbers 13 if it's the sequence of N such that N=2^n for natural numbers n, where N does not contain a 0 153 if it's sequence of N such that the the sum of the digits of N each raised to the power of the number of digits in N equals N.

While I fully agree with the premise that any sequence of numbers can have an essentially infinite choice of 'next number', depending on how you define your sequence, and the simplest way to prove that is simply to given a sequence of _n_ numbers solve the _n+1_ polynomial equation, given that it is incompletely specified then you have an infinite number of solutions. Or just drop in a heavy side step function ( http…

It's the sequence of n such that 2^n doesn't contain the digit 0. This excludes 10 (1024), 11 (2048), and 12 (4096). See http://oeis.org/A007377

Re: Seven Puzzles You Think You Must Not Have Heard Correctly (2006) [pdf]

#105
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that it’s not entirely strictly specified - in particular, there’s no random (uniform) distribution over integers. I guess you could get around this by specifying in in a way you did, or “parametrized” over some parameter, or say “for any distribution” (and mandate a single turn of the game)... Anyways, this is also highly unintuitive for me, so I’m far from certain that the solution below is correct; having…

I think the "orthodox" answer is that your method wouldn't work, because if Alice picks 10 and 20 and opens 10 first then you have a 0% chance of winning. Instead (they say) you should pick your number at random, so that it has at least some probability of being any given integer. For example you could pick the number n with probability 2^|n|/3. That way no matter which two numbers Alice picks there's always some pro…

> if Alice picks 10 and 20 and opens 10 first then you have a 0% chance of winning.

No because you pick the hand (i.e. it’s essentually random), so you still have 50% chance of first revealing 20 and gettingit right.

Re: Seven Puzzles You Think You Must Not Have Heard Correctly (2006) [pdf]

#106
post #47

I found the "trick" solution to Unwanted Expansion to be unsatisfying: unless I am mistaken, it assumes that all of the values must be positive integers, which was not stated as being the case.

no, it's about the structure of the expression expanding indefinitely. if that happened then if all the values were positive then the value of the expression would also tend to infinity

Re: Seven Puzzles You Think You Must Not Have Heard Correctly (2006) [pdf]

#107
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the "orthodox" answer is that your method wouldn't work, because if Alice picks 10 and 20 and opens 10 first then you have a 0% chance of winning. Instead (they say) you should pick your number at random, so that it has at least some probability of being any given integer. For example you could pick the number n with probability 2^|n|/3. That way no matter which two numbers Alice picks there's always some pro…

> if Alice picks 10 and 20 and opens 10 first then you have a 0% chance of winning. No because you pick the hand (i.e. it’s essentually random), so you still have 50% chance of first revealing 20 and gettingit right.

Good point. So our methods are similar, but yours puts the randomness in the choice of hand rather than the choice of integer. But in the (10,20) case your method gets exactly 50% and not more than 50%.

Re: Seven Puzzles You Think You Must Not Have Heard Correctly (2006) [pdf]

#108
post #57

Love in Kleptopia needs to be explained better. The problem can only be solved if you can afix two padlocks onto a box, and I was presuming the lock box had a single, normally shaped padlock eye, which would make such a thing impossible. I find this happens a lot with "thought" problems: I can't solve it (and can often prove that) because the rules of the problem are inadequately explained.

Reminds me of this: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,... What comes next? 10 if it's the sequence of natural numbers 13 if it's the sequence of N such that N=2^n for natural numbers n, where N does not contain a 0 153 if it's sequence of N such that the the sum of the digits of N each raised to the power of the number of digits in N equals N.

In philosophy of sciences, it is called 'underdetermination'.

Re: Seven Puzzles You Think You Must Not Have Heard Correctly (2006) [pdf]

#109
post #57

Love in Kleptopia needs to be explained better. The problem can only be solved if you can afix two padlocks onto a box, and I was presuming the lock box had a single, normally shaped padlock eye, which would make such a thing impossible. I find this happens a lot with "thought" problems: I can't solve it (and can often prove that) because the rules of the problem are inadequately explained.

Reminds me of this: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,... What comes next? 10 if it's the sequence of natural numbers 13 if it's the sequence of N such that N=2^n for natural numbers n, where N does not contain a 0 153 if it's sequence of N such that the the sum of the digits of N each raised to the power of the number of digits in N equals N.

In regards to the second example, I understand the sequence but it seems totally arbitrary. It could also be the sequence

    11 if it's the sequence of N such that N=2^n for natural numbers n, where N does not contain a 24
But then again that's your point, cheers ;-)

Re: Seven Puzzles You Think You Must Not Have Heard Correctly (2006) [pdf]

#110
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would they be fine? So let's say there are two people with red dots, let's name them Ruth and Rudy. Ruth now knows that "not all dots are blue" (which is equivalent to "there is at least one red dot"). She sees Rudy with the red dot: Fine, here's the person with the red dot. But wait a minute, why is Rudy not killing himself? If Rudy is the only person with a red dot, he should have seen only blue dots... however he…

But how would they know how long to wait before they kill themselves? What if Rudy hasn't killed himself yet because he's slightly slower at solving logic problems?

Since they meet every night the implicit idea is that whoever is to kill themselves will do it by the end of the night or next morning -- so after that, in the next-next night's meeting they can take whether someone committed suicide or not into account.

Whether someone is "slower at solving logic problems" goes into IQ etc, and is not relevant to the logic problem (the same way "what if someone refuses to kill themselves over something so superficial" is -- one should assume they can all do the math it takes equally well, else we would have been told of that.

Post reply on HN