5 ms·
Give an unsolved maths question. ;)
by philip142au 7y ago
Give an unsolved maths question. ;)
- dmortin 7y agoThen the answer is: current math cannot solve this question. Answer can be lots of things, it's easy to avoid actually answering the question.
- judlaw 7y agoHey thanks for the comment. If it can be done in 42 we will do it in 42, so NP is probably a hard one at this stage :) The ultimate question is out of our humane reach unfo, but we'll try to cover the rest :)
- tenant 7y agoYou said "Any" question :(
- judlaw 7y agoUpdated to "If it can be done in 42, it will be done in 42." on the website :)
- chippy 7y agoSo if it cannot be done in 42 minutes, it will not be done, right?
- judlaw 7y agoSince we qualify a question before proceeding, we'd politely decline if we can't do it in 42 minutes. Our hypothesis is that anything that takes longer qualifies as a consultation, and there are better platforms for people to find such white collar service providers.
- fixf 7y agoWhat is your agency's policy for answering Newcomb's problem?
- judlaw 7y agoThanks for your question, if you look at some of the examples on the site, our staple questions are contextual ones e.g. something the user is facing at the moment. That could be a legal, IT, finance problem or others that we can help with instantly, but I hope you get the idea. For everything else, there is Wolfram Alpha :)
- logicallee 7y agoI just read about Newcomb's problem due to your comment. Maybe I'm being stupid but I don't think there's any paradox. Let's change it so that the first box contains only a tiiiiiny little speck of gold and nothing else, and you'll see. For this demonstration, you get to play repeatedly. Let's make you too smart for your own good. You start off with the strategy I think is stupid and wrong. So: each time you play, you select both boxes on the (stupid, wrong) theory that selecting both strictly dominates selecting just one. Of course, each time, there's nothing in the second box because your choice has been predicted. After playing several hundred times and amassing a tiny little mound of gold flakes you think about whether you even know any shops where you can convert it, and you didn't even bring a zip lock bag with you, what are you going to do, go home with golddust in your pockets? You think about the hours of time that you've spent. Finally you wisen up and say fuck it, this time time I'll just select the one box. Since your choice has been predicted, you finally get the million dollars, and you realize you were pretty dumb for wasting several hours on a few specks of gold. You keep playing, selecting just the one box, and keep getting a million dollars each time. After you have more cash than you can drive home, you thank God for all your cash and go home. This proves that the choice is simple and there is no paradox or contradiction. With my approach, do you see any paradox?
- fixf 7y agoI share a similar view, that testing whether the examiner is lying is itself worthwhile. But while the analysis has several interpretations this question may pose the agency a small problem. They are answering a paid user and therefore have technically already opened box number 2. They cannot therefore lay claim to box 1, only dodge the question, lie, or accept their fate.