Author |
Topic: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES (Read 15410 times) |
|
srn437
Newbie
the dark lord rises again....
Posts: 1
|
 |
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES
« Reply #25 on: Sep 9th, 2007, 10:13am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
I already explained it. If every two games are dependant on each other, the 50% thing happening means the other 50% thing won't.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender: 
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES
« Reply #26 on: Sep 9th, 2007, 10:43am » |
Quote Modify
|
And I explained why that doesn't make any sense.
It's not how probability works. If by some strategy someone always wins, then there isn't a 50% chance they lose.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
srn437
Newbie
the dark lord rises again....
Posts: 1
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES
« Reply #27 on: Sep 9th, 2007, 11:44am » |
Quote Modify
|
If they were independant of each other. But I said they were dependant on each other.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES
« Reply #28 on: Sep 9th, 2007, 12:20pm » |
Quote Modify
|
How do you figure that applies here? If he never loses he has no probability of losing. Period.
It doesn't depend on how well he played the last time, so statistical dependence doesn't play a role.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
srn437
Newbie
the dark lord rises again....
Posts: 1
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES
« Reply #29 on: Sep 9th, 2007, 6:28pm » |
Quote Modify
|
He does have a probability of losing, but I manipulate that probability. I could apply the inverse to make him always lose.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES
« Reply #30 on: Sep 10th, 2007, 12:05am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 9th, 2007, 6:28pm, srn347 wrote:| He does have a probability of losing, but I manipulate that probability. I could apply the inverse to make him always lose. |
|
If you're so sure, use Bayes to prove it.
That should keep you busy till the end of eternity, because your conception of probability is patently nonsensical..
Ever heard of the law of large numbers? What a probability X means, is that in the long run, it will happen a fraction X of the time, no matter what strategy you employ.
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 10th, 2007, 12:06am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Roy42
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 418
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES
« Reply #31 on: Sep 10th, 2007, 5:06pm » |
Quote Modify
|
srn347, just how do you know that yugi/Atem will win their first match to begin with? They have as much chance of winning as they do of losing at any time, just because they would win one, doesn't mean that if they switch they would win again, does it? The correct answer is that you don't know when to switch, the writers do  
|
|
IP Logged |
Regards,
≈Roy42
|
|
|
srn437
Newbie
the dark lord rises again....
Posts: 1
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES
« Reply #32 on: Sep 11th, 2007, 4:53pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Who is Bayes? And you can't prove that I am not a writer.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES
« Reply #33 on: Sep 12th, 2007, 12:02am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 11th, 2007, 4:53pm, srn347 wrote:Google it.
If you knew half of anything about probability you should already know him though.
Quote:| And you can't prove that I am not a writer. |
|
You're not on the ending credits like every other writer.. Nevermind that they don't have 13 year olds on their writing staff.
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 12th, 2007, 12:03am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
srn437
Newbie
the dark lord rises again....
Posts: 1
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES+one more riddle
« Reply #34 on: Sep 13th, 2007, 9:46pm » |
Quote Modify
|
How about another riddle instead of long tedious debate over probability manipulation? Two people battle. One has every weapon in existance(and some only on tv), and the other one has nothing. Why does the other one win? Hint:even though the other one wins, he might have been destroyed along with the other person(or maybe not)...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
mikedagr8
Uberpuzzler
A rich man is one who is content; not wealthy.
Gender:
Posts: 1105
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES+one more riddle
« Reply #35 on: Sep 14th, 2007, 4:22am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 13th, 2007, 9:46pm, srn347 wrote:| How about another riddle instead of long tedious debate over probability manipulation? Two people battle. One has every weapon in existance(and some only on tv), and the other one has nothing. Why does the other one win? Hint:even though the other one wins, he might have been destroyed along with the other person(or maybe not)... |
|
The other for some strange reason ponders the same thing as he has the ability to see the future, giving time for the other person to push them over the edge of the elevated platform they were fighting on.
|
|
IP Logged |
"It's not that I'm correct, it's that you're just not correct, and so; I am right." - M.P.E.
|
|
|
srn437
Newbie
the dark lord rises again....
Posts: 1
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES
« Reply #36 on: Sep 14th, 2007, 7:20pm » |
Quote Modify
|
No, but good try. Hint:the second person doesn't need to do anything to win.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
thecow135
Full Member
Posts: 172
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES
« Reply #37 on: Sep 17th, 2007, 8:52pm » |
Quote Modify
|
obviously the first person has the so many weapons that he gets crushed beneath them... just like obviously the riddle is greatly worded
|
|
IP Logged |
cuz everybody noe that the game dont stop try to make it to the top fo ur ass get popped
|
|
|
srn437
Newbie
the dark lord rises again....
Posts: 1
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES
« Reply #38 on: Sep 17th, 2007, 8:57pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Creative, but no.
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 17th, 2007, 8:57pm by srn437 » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES
« Reply #39 on: Sep 18th, 2007, 1:18am » |
Quote Modify
|
My guess would be a nuclear weapon, or something similar.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
srn437
Newbie
the dark lord rises again....
Posts: 1
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES
« Reply #40 on: Sep 19th, 2007, 6:38am » |
Quote Modify
|
Something similar. A bomb that the first guy has explodes, but the second person might be hit by the explosion.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
iono
Senior Riddler
dehydrated water....
Gender:
Posts: 516
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES
« Reply #41 on: Oct 25th, 2007, 6:18pm » |
Quote Modify
|
if you flip a coin, it has a 50% chance of coming up heads. If it does, that doesn't mean the next flip is guaranteed to come up tails. heads has a 50% chance of coming up the first time, and 50% the 2ndtime, regardless what happened the first time. Same thing with the second qustion. 
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 25th, 2007, 6:20pm by iono » |
IP Logged |
So, if I help you, I'll get kicked for ksing, but if I don't, then I'll get kick for not helping...
|
|
|
shasta
Newbie
Posts: 29
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES
« Reply #42 on: Jan 19th, 2008, 9:03am » |
Quote Modify
|
[quote author=FiBsTeR]
"If it was tails I would have lost, but it wasn't so I don't"
Let: p = tails comes up, q = I lose, ~p = not p, ~q = not q
You're saying that: (p --> q) --> (~p --> ~q), or that the statement implies the inverse. That doesn't work.
[/quote]
[quote author=srn347]I was assuming they were dependant. And what is with that arrow thing? I've seen it before, but what does it represent. [/quote]
Ah, good ol' symbolic logic. The arrows are best translated as meaning "implies", though I think it would translate a little better into standard English if he had used a "therefore" symbol instead of the middle arrow. The best way to do it using the standard qwerty keyboard that I know of would look like this...
P ---> Q
Q ---> R
-----------
P ---> R
The horizontal line in the middle translates into "therefore". Thus this argument would be read aloud as "P implies Q and Q implies R. Therefore, P implies R." In logic, when one thing implies another it means that if it's true, than this other thing is true too. So another way to say the above statement is... "If P is true, then Q is true. If Q is true, then R is true. Therefore, if P is true, then R is true."
Note that "therefore" and "implies" are logical synonyms, but in English it's easier I think for most to understand it like this. Otherwise the statements get a little cluttered "If it's true that if P is true then Q is true and that if Q is true then R is true, then it's also true that if P is true then R is true.". It means the same thing, but it's just a more complicated way of saying it.
So getting back to the argument you presented...
P="The coin comes up heads."
Q="John, the coinflipper wins."
You're suggestion to win if the coin comes up tails symbolically looks like this, (remember that ~ means "not"),...
P ---> Q
~P
---------
~Q
...which can be read in English as "P being true implies that Q is also true. P isn't true. Therefore Q isn't true." This is a common fallacy of logic known as "denying the antecedent". The fact that one thing implies another does not mean that the opposite of that thing implies the opposite of the other. For example...
If my name is John, my name starts with J.
My name is not John.
Therefore my name does not start with a J.
This of course is wrong because my name could be Jim, Jeff, Jeremiah, and many others. Any argument that is set up in this same way is a fallacious argument, even if it's conclusion happens to be true! For examples...
If every day alien battleships fire hair tonic at my head, then my hair goes down to my knees.
It is not true that every day, alien battleships fire hair tonic at my head.
Therefore my hair must not go down to my knees.
It is true that my hair doesn't go down to my knees, but this argument is still false, (the conclusion is true for entirely different reasons).
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Random Lack of Squiggily Lines
Senior Riddler
Everything before 7/1/2008 is now irrelevant.
Gender:
Posts: 460
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES
« Reply #43 on: Jan 20th, 2008, 7:32am » |
Quote Modify
|
2) when yugi is about to lose, switch to atem.
solves yugi's problem
3) Yes, which would mean no
|
|
IP Logged |
You can only believe i what you can prove, and since you have nothing proven to cmpare to, you can believe in nothing.
I have ~50 posts to hack a "R" into a "D". Which one?
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES
« Reply #44 on: Jan 20th, 2008, 7:35am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 19th, 2008, 9:03am, shasta wrote:| It is true that my hair doesn't go down to my knees, but this argument is still false, (the conclusion is true for entirely different reasons). |
|
A slight comment on terminology, it's probably better to say that the argument is invalid, rather than false. (Or you could even say the inference rule used in the argument is invalid, and therefore the argument fails.)
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
shasta
Newbie
Posts: 29
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES
« Reply #45 on: Jan 21st, 2008, 5:54pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 20th, 2008, 7:35am, towr wrote:
A slight comment on terminology, it's probably better to say that the argument is invalid, rather than false. (Or you could even say the inference rule used in the argument is invalid, and therefore the argument fails.) |
|
Good catch. Thank you. 
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
onlyme722
Newbie
 
Gender: 
Posts: 46
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES
« Reply #46 on: Mar 5th, 2008, 4:24am » |
Quote Modify
|
FiFirstly...in reference to #1...UNLESS some unexpected, unpredictable, and factor unaccounted for comes in to play, I can't win. Bottom line is: mathematically and logically...according to the argument which you hath presented, I lose either way. You could choose to factor in ridiculous odds that include something BESIDES a regular coin with a heads & tails...otherwise your definition would contradict any other answer.
#2) To simplify it (more than you have done so yourself without realizing) if there are two people who oppose each other, and one of them has a 50% chance of losing, it would also imply that that same individual, as opposed to losing, has a 50% chance of winning. Unless you factor in some inanely ridiculous outside element to contradict this, such as..."one of them possesses a magic bean"....well, this is simply an inane riddle all around....Especially considering that, unless inside knowledge of "yugiho" (or whatever) comes into play, you can't simply ask this of any normal person who watches cartoons on adult swim (yes, that's intended to come off as sarcastic and slightly insulting...my apologies).
And #3...anyone who studies and enjoys the English language (in this case) knows that there are paradoxes everywhere. Figure of speech, sarcasm, satire, exaggeration, allegory, irony, metaphor.....etc...all come in to play.
This(#3), however, is not a very convincing paradox.
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 5th, 2008, 4:26am by onlyme722 » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
onlyme722
Newbie
Gender:
Posts: 46
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES
« Reply #47 on: Mar 5th, 2008, 4:37am » |
Quote Modify
|
also...i apologize for coming off as a total *itch,,,and isn't it funny that if you were you forget to hit the shift key (which I happened to have done) the word is still almost completely intact?
I will look over this again tomorrow, when I am in possession of a more sane mind  .
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES
« Reply #48 on: Mar 5th, 2008, 7:05pm » |
Quote Modify
|
A sane mind isn't useful when dealing the ramblings of srn347.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
Roy42
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 418
|
|
Re: 3 NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES
« Reply #49 on: Mar 5th, 2008, 7:10pm » |
Quote Modify
|
truer words couldn't have been spoken.
Now then, i was away from these boards for a while, when was srn347 banned and under what violation (so i can smile to myself)?
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 5th, 2008, 7:11pm by Roy42 » |
IP Logged |
Regards,
≈Roy42
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print