5 ms·

I meant strictly more, as in at least three. If you know that there are more than two blue eyed people and you can only see two, you know that you have blue ey

I meant strictly more, as in at least three. If you know that there are more than two blue eyed people and you can only see two, you know that you have blue eyes. If you can see 99 blue eyes, you know that all the other people see either 98 or 99 (if there's a total of 99 blue eyes) or 99 or 100 (if there's 100 blue eyes). However, if some people see 98 and know that there's at least 99 people with blue eyes, then they would all suicide. Since they don't, you know everyone sees either 99 or 100 blue eyes. Since you see 99, you must have blue eyes.

jack9 11y ago
As a villager, you already know everyone sees either 99 or 100 blue eyes. You see 99, but you don't know if everyone else sees 99 or 100 (if they have blue it's 99 if they dont it's 100). You knew it before the visitor, and after his statement. This does not help in deducing if you have blue eyes. > then they would all suicide No they wouldn't. Nobody should suicide at all. The visitor saying someone has blue eyes, was already known by every member of the village and every member of the village saw more than 1 person with blue eyes prior. Nothing is different because he said something. > Since you see 99, you must have blue eyes I don't know there's 100, so I don't know I have blue eyes.
- knughit 11y ago
  This is a solved problem. When a proof is written, you should challenge the proof, not just reassert your intuition. You are ignoring islander A's view of B's view of C's view of ... Z's view of situation. Think about 3 islander's, where A thinks "if I have green eyes, then B and C are in a situation equivalent to me not being here, and B sees exactly 1 blue eyed person C, and B knows that 'C sees 0 or 1 blue eyed people, but then C learned that 0 is impossible'"
boomzilla 11y ago
Is the outsider not needed for this line of reasoning to work assuming that the total number of people doesn't change? All the 100 blue eyed would commit suicide after a hundred days after the creation of the island since they work out they have blue eyes. I think the main challenge in this puzzle is the lack of assumption on what kind of reasoning the islanders are capable of doing and what the initial conditions are.

jack9 11y ago

As a villager, you already know everyone sees either 99 or 100 blue eyes. You see 99, but you don't know if everyone else sees 99 or 100 (if they have blue it's 99 if they dont it's 100). You knew it before the visitor, and after his statement. This does not help in deducing if you have blue eyes. > then they would all suicide No they wouldn't. Nobody should suicide at all. The visitor saying someone has blue eyes, was already known by every member of the village and every member of the village saw more than 1 person with blue eyes prior. Nothing is different because he said something. > Since you see 99, you must have blue eyes I don't know there's 100, so I don't know I have blue eyes.

knughit 11y ago
This is a solved problem. When a proof is written, you should challenge the proof, not just reassert your intuition. You are ignoring islander A's view of B's view of C's view of ... Z's view of situation. Think about 3 islander's, where A thinks "if I have green eyes, then B and C are in a situation equivalent to me not being here, and B sees exactly 1 blue eyed person C, and B knows that 'C sees 0 or 1 blue eyed people, but then C learned that 0 is impossible'"

boomzilla 11y ago

Is the outsider not needed for this line of reasoning to work assuming that the total number of people doesn't change? All the 100 blue eyed would commit suicide after a hundred days after the creation of the island since they work out they have blue eyes. I think the main challenge in this puzzle is the lack of assumption on what kind of reasoning the islanders are capable of doing and what the initial conditions are.