4 ms·

> Main puzzle: [...] Confirm you agree with the strategy on your next turn, as well as sending a color or null What if they disagree with the strategy? How do

> Main puzzle: [...] Confirm you agree with the strategy on your next turn, as well as sending a color or null What if they disagree with the strategy? How do you resolve the situation where their strategy is just as valid as yours? > Will I know when it is my turn again, or is that part of the lost information? The turns proceed as in the main variation, you just don't whether the message of each round arrives. As the article says - it's the general's problem, which is only solveable probabilistically.

jedberg 5y ago
> What if they disagree with the strategy? How do you resolve the situation where their strategy is just as valid as yours? Then presumably their strategy would also involve a confirmation message, so I would randomly choose my second message to either be "I agree with your strategy" or "I disagree" and then re-propose my strategy. It's all about being random in your choices. > The turns proceed as in the main variation, you just don't whether the message of each round arrives. Right, but the strategy changes if I have a fixed counter telling me what turn it is, because then I can reliably say "Pick a color and turn number to announce it and repeat your message on every turn" and as long as the turn number is high enough then the probability of me getting the confirmation is high and we are certain to announce on the same turn. But if the turn counter has to be kept independently, then we need more information, because first we need to send many messages to determine the baseline delivery success rate so we can have a high probability of being on the same turn number.
- MauranKilom 5y ago
  > Then presumably their strategy would also involve a confirmation message, so I would randomly choose my second message to either be "I agree with your strategy" or "I disagree" and then re-propose my strategy. It's all about being random in your choices. What if their choice of (meta-)strategy for agreeing on the strategy is different? Unless you can prove that only a single winning strategy exists (which every perfect logician will arrive at), you can't really assume that they will cooperate with whatever strategy or (meta-)*strategy you communicate. Sure, most humans will be on the same page as you very quickly as you go up meta-levels, but if you rely on human nature you also quickly get fallibility (see the host of bad answers in this thread) and not "perfect logicians". > But if the turn counter has to be kept independently, then we need more information Every time you have the opportunity to send a message, a new round begins (for both participants). Can you explain how this needs "more information"?

jedberg 5y ago

> What if they disagree with the strategy? How do you resolve the situation where their strategy is just as valid as yours? Then presumably their strategy would also involve a confirmation message, so I would randomly choose my second message to either be "I agree with your strategy" or "I disagree" and then re-propose my strategy. It's all about being random in your choices. > The turns proceed as in the main variation, you just don't whether the message of each round arrives. Right, but the strategy changes if I have a fixed counter telling me what turn it is, because then I can reliably say "Pick a color and turn number to announce it and repeat your message on every turn" and as long as the turn number is high enough then the probability of me getting the confirmation is high and we are certain to announce on the same turn. But if the turn counter has to be kept independently, then we need more information, because first we need to send many messages to determine the baseline delivery success rate so we can have a high probability of being on the same turn number.

MauranKilom 5y ago
> Then presumably their strategy would also involve a confirmation message, so I would randomly choose my second message to either be "I agree with your strategy" or "I disagree" and then re-propose my strategy. It's all about being random in your choices. What if their choice of (meta-)strategy for agreeing on the strategy is different? Unless you can prove that only a single winning strategy exists (which every perfect logician will arrive at), you can't really assume that they will cooperate with whatever strategy or (meta-)*strategy you communicate. Sure, most humans will be on the same page as you very quickly as you go up meta-levels, but if you rely on human nature you also quickly get fallibility (see the host of bad answers in this thread) and not "perfect logicians". > But if the turn counter has to be kept independently, then we need more information Every time you have the opportunity to send a message, a new round begins (for both participants). Can you explain how this needs "more information"?