3 ms·

Instead of sending "yes" you can send a message outlining a similar strategy (sending colors at random) to agree on one of the two sets of colors. The ability

• aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago
  The other party can do the same, but describing a slightly different strategy. How would you decide whose strategy to use? In order to agree on a colour, you first must agree on a strategy. In order to agree on a strategy, you first must agree on a strategy to choose the strategy. In order to agree on a strategy to choose the strategy, you first must agree on a strategy to choose the strategy to choose the strategy. ...
  • brandonmenc 5y ago
    Someone can always break the loggerjam by sending the message "I am going to dictate the strategy. Send 'yes' if you agree to this." Again, I think the "logical human on the other end" plus "arbitrary messages" along with the vanishing probability of constantly sending the same messages makes this easy in practice. They're not asking to prove that it halts, but I get what you're saying.
    • aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago
      >Someone can always break the loggerjam by sending the message "I am going to dictate the strategy. Send 'yes' if you agree to this." Since the other party is just as logical as you, they can send you the same at the same time... By the way, if you think this is an acceptable solution, then there's no need for the whole random colour and strategy thing; just send "The color will be red. Send yes if you agree to this". If you think this is not an acceptable solution, then neither is yours.