21–30 of 99 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not true in a live and death scenario, because with asymmetric payoffs like that - termination being the down side risk - it is not at all „rational“ to jump to the answer that gives the highest probability of success, if that answer still has a non-zero risk of death.
Then as I mentioned below, you neither of you send a message and the game remains open indefinitely.
> Some student candidates had proposed an interesting idea of trying to blend the two colors. [...] I like this idea a lot, but it seems problematic in light of the fact that we don’t have such a clear and unambiguous means of combining colors. Not if we use RGB, send the color as a tuple of three numbers and average both tuples (taking the floor for example if one of the numbers is odd).
What they're really after is whether you can keep thinking and not be intimidated into silence. Just about any subject that a professor understands can be taken to where a high school graduate is stumped. You can always add twists to just about anything interesting. They key is to realise they are testing whether you'll interact well, not whether you can figure out the answers.
I was quite fortunate, they kept asking me things that I knew and they weren't disappointed with where my limits were.
It does come off as a bit confrontational to the modern observer I'd say, and it does give the impression that tutorials are some sort of intellectual sparring match. They're not, clearly you'd be flattened by the professor if they were.
> Some student candidates had proposed an interesting idea of trying to blend the two colors. [...] I like this idea a lot, but it seems problematic in light of the fact that we don’t have such a clear and unambiguous means of combining colors. Not if we use RGB, send the color as a tuple of three numbers and average both tuples (taking the floor for example if one of the numbers is odd).
How would you know to use RGB and not CMYK or HSL?
One of the difficulties is deciding on a strategy that would work even if the other player used the exact same strategy on you. My solution is to say something like: ‘I will nominate a colour next round. If we both nominate the same colour, I will say that colour and end the game next round. If anything else, I will nominate a different colour, proceeding alphabetically.’ Of course, it would depend on what message yo…
Job done.
These scenarios in TFA seem to imply that both players want to be the "leader" as it were (all this talk of breaking symmetry etc) and that this is so somehow some sort of interminable problem. The problem does not seem to state any "cost" of waiting a turn, so there is no rush it seems, and there seems to be no cost of being the "leader" or "follower".
This is a basic master-election issue more than anything. Solved problem ... see paxos et al (although I concede that this is more of a "how you think" question, and less about the "correct answer")
One of the difficulties is deciding on a strategy that would work even if the other player used the exact same strategy on you. My solution is to say something like: ‘I will nominate a colour next round. If we both nominate the same colour, I will say that colour and end the game next round. If anything else, I will nominate a different colour, proceeding alphabetically.’ Of course, it would depend on what message yo…
> So maybe you’d have a clause which says, if the other player gives an ultimatum message, then you will go along with that.
But that doesn't work, because both players can send such a message simultaneously, but they can't both comply simultaneously.
One of the difficulties is deciding on a strategy that would work even if the other player used the exact same strategy on you. My solution is to say something like: ‘I will nominate a colour next round. If we both nominate the same colour, I will say that colour and end the game next round. If anything else, I will nominate a different colour, proceeding alphabetically.’ Of course, it would depend on what message yo…
If you can rely on the other player being logical (as suggested), just wait for them to suggest a colour then use it. If they do not suggest a colour (perhaps they are waiting for you to suggest?) then suggest a colour yourself, then the other player being as logical as you will use it. Job done. These scenarios in TFA seem to imply that both players want to be the "leader" as it were (all this talk of breaking symme…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then as I mentioned below, you neither of you send a message and the game remains open indefinitely.
How do you do that after you’ve been killed for screaming „blue“?
So still think it makes sense to say it. It might get through and they repeat and we win. It might not, and they'd be taking a guess that I'd said it. (but the alternate would be I've not sent a message, providing best output of game-running forever/death - so if they presumed I was logical, they'd know I'd said 'blue')
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then as I mentioned below, you neither of you send a message and the game remains open indefinitely.
How do you do that after you’ve been killed for screaming „blue“?
>>> and the two of you would just scream "blue" at each other
You come to an agreement before you announce a choice.
I'm surprised more people didn't recognize the two generals problem.
FTA: We had used these puzzles in our admissions interviews of candidates for a place at Oxford University in the degree courses Math/philosophy, CS/philosophy, and PPE at University College, Oxford I’m not familiar with the term “degree course”, but suspect the candidates were bright, but also around 18 years old.