The secret of how to be miserable is to constantly expect things are going to happen the way that they are "supposed" to happen.
You can have faith, which carries the understanding that you may be disappointed. Then there's being a willfully-blind idiot, which virtually guarantees it.
Ernest Friedman-Hill wrote:Hmmm. Well, the only thing I could think of is if everything were geometrically perfect, aligned, and still, D would see only one black hat. He would not be able to see B because C would block his view. C assumes that D can see B as well as himself, but I suppose that's by no means certain.
The secret of how to be miserable is to constantly expect things are going to happen the way that they are "supposed" to happen.
You can have faith, which carries the understanding that you may be disappointed. Then there's being a willfully-blind idiot, which virtually guarantees it.
Spot false dilemmas now, ask me how!
(If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much room.)
Jayesh A Lalwani wrote:I think it's a good interview question because it makes the interviewer think beyond the most obvious.
Bear Bibeault wrote:
Jayesh A Lalwani wrote:I think it's a good interview question because it makes the interviewer think beyond the most obvious.
I hate these type of interview questions. They do nothing to find out if a candidate has the qualifications I'm looking for.
The secret of how to be miserable is to constantly expect things are going to happen the way that they are "supposed" to happen.
You can have faith, which carries the understanding that you may be disappointed. Then there's being a willfully-blind idiot, which virtually guarantees it.
Tim Holloway wrote:
Interviewer or interviewee?
Bear Bibeault wrote:
Jayesh A Lalwani wrote:I think it's a good interview question because it makes the interviewer think beyond the most obvious.
I hate these type of interview questions. They do nothing to find out if a candidate has the qualifications I'm looking for.
Jayesh A Lalwani wrote:Analytical skills like this is a god [sic] skill to have.
Jayesh A Lalwani wrote:What if A has X-ray vision?
The secret of how to be miserable is to constantly expect things are going to happen the way that they are "supposed" to happen.
You can have faith, which carries the understanding that you may be disappointed. Then there's being a willfully-blind idiot, which virtually guarantees it.
Jayesh A Lalwani wrote:It doesn't matter what sex they are. They are buried from the head down anyways
Tim Holloway wrote:We have a winner!
Jayesh has seen it. The strictures say that "nor other ways of communicating". But SILENCE is communication as well!
Steve
Tim Holloway wrote:
Of course the real danger of such a system of communication is that in the circumstances described, it's not reliable. A few reasons why D might not sing out right off have already been mentioned. And what if D has an attack of hysterical laryngitis? What if D gets so befuddled that he misses the obvious? What if D is a vicious bastard who's willing to wait NINE minutes before speaking up, even at the risk that one of the others will panic and make a wild incorrect guess, figuring that 50/50 odds are better than none?
I used to have a relative who'd employ this tactic. Put you in a situation where you daren't speak and then say "Silence implies Consent". A lot of real atrocities in this world have been justified by that phrase, whether uttered or merely accepted as a given.
Tim Holloway wrote:We have a winner!
Jayesh has seen it. The strictures say that "nor other ways of communicating". But SILENCE is communication as well!
Ernest Friedman-Hill wrote:
So Tim, let me guess, you threw down "Foundation" in disgust after the first few chapters?
The secret of how to be miserable is to constantly expect things are going to happen the way that they are "supposed" to happen.
You can have faith, which carries the understanding that you may be disappointed. Then there's being a willfully-blind idiot, which virtually guarantees it.
Tim Holloway wrote:My objection here was that the puzzle specifically and explicitly stated no forms of communication, and I maintain that that was an outright lie, since silence is communication, too.
Mike Simmons wrote:
Tim Holloway wrote:My objection here was that the puzzle specifically and explicitly stated no forms of communication, and I maintain that that was an outright lie, since silence is communication, too.
It said, no other means of communicating. After it had talked about the fact that there was a minute of silence, followed by one person calling out. What did you think "other" meant here?
The secret of how to be miserable is to constantly expect things are going to happen the way that they are "supposed" to happen.
You can have faith, which carries the understanding that you may be disappointed. Then there's being a willfully-blind idiot, which virtually guarantees it.
Saurabh Pillai wrote:What if the arrangement is (a,b,c,d) -> (w,b,w,b). Even in this situation d would remain silent and c would not know his hat color.
Tim Holloway wrote:
I did read the whole series through, though. Can't recall why the first few chapters would be off-putting.
Ernest Friedman-Hill wrote:
Tim Holloway wrote:
I did read the whole series through, though. Can't recall why the first few chapters would be off-putting.
Just the notion that people's behavior was rational or computable.
The secret of how to be miserable is to constantly expect things are going to happen the way that they are "supposed" to happen.
You can have faith, which carries the understanding that you may be disappointed. Then there's being a willfully-blind idiot, which virtually guarantees it.
Tim Holloway wrote:
Besides, psycho-history disclaimed the idea that individuals were totally predictable. It required very large populations. Planet-sized or bigger.
Jayesh A Lalwani wrote:
Tim Holloway wrote:
Besides, psycho-history disclaimed the idea that individuals were totally predictable. It required very large populations. Planet-sized or bigger.
SO, if you changed the puzzle to have planets instead of persons, you are fine with the puzzle? Let's say that it takes 10 years for a message from one planet to reach another planet and they have 1 year to solve the puzzle.
The secret of how to be miserable is to constantly expect things are going to happen the way that they are "supposed" to happen.
You can have faith, which carries the understanding that you may be disappointed. Then there's being a willfully-blind idiot, which virtually guarantees it.
Jayesh A Lalwani wrote:SO, if you changed the puzzle to have planets instead of persons, you are fine with the puzzle? Let's say that it takes 10 years for a message from one planet to reach another planet and they have 1 year to solve the puzzle.
Tim Holloway wrote:I'll have to grant you that one, although it comes under the heading of misdirection, because it's a psychological trick. The explicit solution is not given, but by making a distinct and separate paragraph of the fact that there is a solution, it gives the impression that that statement is not part of the strictures enclosing the problem, when in fact it is the most essential part of the definition of the problem.
Mike Simmons wrote:Also that both want to live - what if one is suicidal?
The secret of how to be miserable is to constantly expect things are going to happen the way that they are "supposed" to happen.
You can have faith, which carries the understanding that you may be disappointed. Then there's being a willfully-blind idiot, which virtually guarantees it.
Tim Holloway wrote:As a measure of programming aptitude it fails, because one of the first things you want to do when solving a problem is to obtain as much data as possible. But this puzzle is predicated on the absence of something, not its presence.
To reference Sherlock Holmes: The dog didn't bark.