3 ms·

> sacrifice a goat and examine the entrails and guarantee that you won't do worse than 50% and might do better. Huh? Sacrificing a goat (i.e. choosing randomly

by fenomas 11y ago

> sacrifice a goat and examine the entrails and guarantee that you won't do worse than 50% and might do better. Huh? Sacrificing a goat (i.e. choosing randomly) will not do better than break even. > If that R, A, and B are elements of the real line... This makes assumptions about A and B that aren't in the puzzle. The fact that they're unknown doesn't imply that they're chosen from an infinite uniform distribution. It just means we have no information about them.

JackFr 11y ago
I don't think I make any assumptions about A,B other than that they're on the real line. Regardless, as the puzzle stands, there is no way to show that P[A < R < B] > 0. Since you can't show that, you can't claim that the strategy ever yields performance > 50%.
- fenomas 11y ago
  > there is no way to show that P[A < R < B] > 0 As the puzzle and strategy are stated, the methods for choosing A/B/R are all left unspecified. If we don't know how they're chosen, it stands to reason that we can't rule out the possibility of R falling between A and B, hence there's a nonzero chance of it happening. If you want a rigorous way to show this even for any given opponent strategy, the player can choose R from an unbounded distribution - which is nonzero everywhere, and therefore nonzero between A and B, for any choices of A!=B.
  - umanwizard 11y ago
    "Can't rule out the possibility" isn't the same thing as "nonzero probability". E.g. pick a number uniformly at random between 0 and 1. It might be rational, but the probability of that is 0.
    - fenomas 11y ago
      You're moving the goalposts from what the article claims. The opponent's strategy is unknown and unspecified, per the puzzle. The point of the article is that there is a strategy that never does worse than chance, and may do better, depending on the opponent's choice of numbers. Sure, the opponent can make your advantage arbitrarily small - the article says that directly. But the notion that they are trying to do so is not part of the puzzle, and finding a strategy that prevents them from doing so is not what the author claims to have done.

by fenomas 11y ago

JackFr 11y ago

I don't think I make any assumptions about A,B other than that they're on the real line. Regardless, as the puzzle stands, there is no way to show that P[A < R < B] > 0. Since you can't show that, you can't claim that the strategy ever yields performance > 50%.

fenomas 11y ago
> there is no way to show that P[A < R < B] > 0 As the puzzle and strategy are stated, the methods for choosing A/B/R are all left unspecified. If we don't know how they're chosen, it stands to reason that we can't rule out the possibility of R falling between A and B, hence there's a nonzero chance of it happening. If you want a rigorous way to show this even for any given opponent strategy, the player can choose R from an unbounded distribution - which is nonzero everywhere, and therefore nonzero between A and B, for any choices of A!=B.
- umanwizard 11y ago
  "Can't rule out the possibility" isn't the same thing as "nonzero probability". E.g. pick a number uniformly at random between 0 and 1. It might be rational, but the probability of that is 0.
  - fenomas 11y ago
    You're moving the goalposts from what the article claims. The opponent's strategy is unknown and unspecified, per the puzzle. The point of the article is that there is a strategy that never does worse than chance, and may do better, depending on the opponent's choice of numbers. Sure, the opponent can make your advantage arbitrarily small - the article says that directly. But the notion that they are trying to do so is not part of the puzzle, and finding a strategy that prevents them from doing so is not what the author claims to have done.