I like puzzles like this, where it's not just "what does each person know?" but also "when did they know it?" Another similar puzzle, with more logic and fewer numbers, is this one which was nicely written up on xkcd: https://xkcd.com/blue_eyes.html
“I don't know the numbers”: a math puzzle
21–30 of 119 posts
Re: “I don't know the numbers”: a math puzzle
#22Yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31269698
Re: “I don't know the numbers”: a math puzzle
#23Bonus meta-puzzle: the puzzle as stated is actually unsolvable. Both Sandy and Peter have to know something that the puzzle implies but does not actually stipulate that they know. What is it?
That both are perfect logicians with an understanding of the system sans the information about the two numbers themselves?
Re: “I don't know the numbers”: a math puzzle
#24Bonus meta-puzzle: the puzzle as stated is actually unsolvable. Both Sandy and Peter have to know something that the puzzle implies but does not actually stipulate that they know. What is it?
Re: “I don't know the numbers”: a math puzzle
#25That was a fun puzzle. I have another one that is math puzzle: > You are given two eggs, and access to a 100-storey tower. Both eggs are identical. The aim is to find out the highest floor from which an egg will not break when dropped out of a window from that floor. If an egg is dropped and does not break, it is undamaged and can be dropped again. However, once an egg is broken, that’s it for that egg. > If an egg b…
Quoted post unavailable.
Eggs are evolutionarily designed to survive falling out of nests and perches. You assume that the egg is dropping onto a hard surface, but there is no mention of that in the puzzle.
That's even assuming it's a chicken egg, but other eggs may be more resilient. It may not even be a biological egg, but an artifically designed egg, that is resilient to drops onto harder surfaces.
Re: “I don't know the numbers”: a math puzzle
#26That was a fun puzzle. I have another one that is math puzzle: > You are given two eggs, and access to a 100-storey tower. Both eggs are identical. The aim is to find out the highest floor from which an egg will not break when dropped out of a window from that floor. If an egg is dropped and does not break, it is undamaged and can be dropped again. However, once an egg is broken, that’s it for that egg. > If an egg b…
Re: “I don't know the numbers”: a math puzzle
#27That was a fun puzzle. I have another one that is math puzzle: > You are given two eggs, and access to a 100-storey tower. Both eggs are identical. The aim is to find out the highest floor from which an egg will not break when dropped out of a window from that floor. If an egg is dropped and does not break, it is undamaged and can be dropped again. However, once an egg is broken, that’s it for that egg. > If an egg b…
Quoted post unavailable.
The problem isn't with mathematicians.
Re: “I don't know the numbers”: a math puzzle
#28 import itertools
import collections
candidates = [s for s in itertools.product(range(100), range(100)) if s[0]
(Usually, next step is variable names, comments, etc.)Re: “I don't know the numbers”: a math puzzle
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
On August 22, 1994, David Donoghue threw an egg out of a helicopter onto a golf course in the UK, from a height of 213 meters (700 feet). He now has the record for the longest egg drop without breaking in the world (all without an outside structure for added protection!). https://www.scienceworld.ca/resource/egg-drop/ Eggs are evolutionarily designed to survive falling out of nests and perches. You assume that the eg…
I wonder about this. Realistically, what fate awaits the egg that dropped from the nest in the tree branch, even if it survives the fall?
Re: “I don't know the numbers”: a math puzzle
#30 if round == 15:
for product in products:
if len(products[product]) == 1:
print('Peter: I do know the numbers')
print(products[product][0])
return
This should not return - it should continue iterating. If the problem (and the code) is correct, then it should only find one answer - but unless you exhaustively search and find exactly one answer you don't know that it's correct.Incidentally, I was also a bit surprised by
candidate_pairs = set()
for i in range(1, N):
for j in range(1, N):
if (i, j) not in candidate_pairs and (j, i) not in candidate_pairs:
candidate_pairs.add((i, j))
That first (i, j) check can never return false and should be omitted, right?