3 ms·
I've always found this paradox interesting, as it was discovered fairly recently (1996) compared to other paradoxes in math.
by tristanj 4y ago
I've always found this paradox interesting, as it was discovered fairly recently (1996) compared to other paradoxes in math.
- hgsgm 4y agoIt's because the paradox relies on an unintuitive "mistake in your homework" premise that defines things in an unhelpful way. ( Game A+B+Rule C has different outcomes from Game A and Game B is obvious. You have to mistakenly hide Game C from your mind in order to make a paradox. It's a word game, mis-describing what is happening before doing it. The resolution is "stop hitting yourself".
- seanhunter 4y agoI'm not sure your statement is doing it justice. The idea that a combination of two losing things can be a winning thing specifically doesn't seem intuitive. Lots of game-theoretic analyses involve decomposing a complex game into different situatons and trying to solve each situation seperately. Especially for hidden information games with multiple rounds (eg Poker or card games generally). The assumption underlying this approach is by combining winning strategies together you can approximate an overall optimal solution breaks down in the face of this given that you might need to include all combinations of losing things also since those losing strategies may combine to form a winning strategy overall.