4 ms·

With these types of trick questions, it is always interesting what is an acceptable trick and what is not. The question did not specify whole numbers as it doe

With these types of trick questions, it is always interesting what is an acceptable trick and what is not. The question did not specify whole numbers as it does not specify a random selection, but one is in bounds and the other not.

jhfdbkofdchk 2y ago
I always felt that part of the interview process is the candidate asking clarifying questions as well as making and stating assumptions.
- mdswanson 2y ago
  It is. Or at least it was for some of us. I didn't care if the candidate ever got the right answer. I cared about the thinking, the questions, the strategies, and the conversation.
  - TZubiri 2y ago
    And if some interpretations lead to trivial solutions, but one leads to a complex problem, it's likely that their intention is the latter. A kind of tacit communication
    - MarkusQ 2y ago
      Actually, it may just as likely be that the interviewer is looking to see if you over complicate things. So _ask_.
- jnordwick 2y ago
  I hate that. It turns the problem into one of those lateral thinking puzzles we were told some basic information and then the answer winds up being something totally wildly different. It wasn't being very random in the end not being very productive
  - kadoban 2y ago
    Are we describing interviews here, or the process of software engineering in practice? It could be either imo. Those clarifying questions and some of the thinking through consequences are the only really topical part of SE interviews, the rest is just math you won't use on the job 99.99% of the time anyway.
petesergeant 2y ago
> it is always interesting what is an acceptable trick and what is not I have not found the type of person who asks trick questions to be the type of person who finds it interesting to have the trick questions they've posed to be prodded. Completely tangential, but something I enjoyed reading that feels in the same realm: https://blog.plover.com/math/logic/annoying-boxes-solution.html https://blog.plover.com/math/logic/annoying-boxes-solution.h...
- krackers 2y ago
  >I enjoyed reading that feels in the same realm [annoying boxes] I had to reread that a few times to figure out what he was saying. All that comes down to is the fact that in his presentation technically there's nothing linking the propositional value of the box labels to the box contents. In most puzzles this linkage specified "outside the puzzle world" but in this case it's specified "inside the puzzle world" and so nothing can be deduced from it. But any sane person would assume the two align (especially in the setting of a puzzle), and so there's the gotcha. Seems very different from the kind of "trick" questions in interview which are closer to one-way questions where the problem is trivial with some key insight but quite hard otherwise.
  - petesergeant 2y ago
    > any sane person would assume I disagree, and when I first encountered it it seemed pretty obvious to me, but maybe I’m just used to question where the answer can be “not enough information”
  - dullcrisp 2y ago
    I assume the real point of the puzzle (which is lost in the post) is to demonstrate how not all statements have a definite truth value. If we assume that the label on the red box must be either true or false then we can prove that the treasure is in the red box. We’d be wrong though, since the treasure is in the green box.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
jonahx 2y ago
Technically true but if real numbers are allowed you don't have a puzzle. Rather, you have a silly puzzle that consists in checking if the interviewee will say, "Waaaiiiit a second, is any number allowed? Because then you can never win!" and the interviewer saying, "Nicely done!". Nevertheless, the assumption should be stated. The random selection omission is intentional.
- rileymat2 2y ago
  And that's all hinged in the expectations of the intent of the question, if it is attention to details, the real number scenario is completely reasonable. If it is not, you can pick apart these types of puzzles and seem overly hard to work with.
drewcoo 2y ago
Those problems allow follow-up questions to better define things. In fact, as initially stated, the problems are usually so vague as to require follow-ups.
GuB-42 2y ago
It also doesn't mention if Ballmer is able to change the number during the game. If he is only "thinking" about a number without writing it down beforehand, nothing stops him from doing it, as long as it is consistent with all the statements he made. This trick actually makes the problem easier, you always need 7 tries, and the payoff, and not just the expected value is $940. Of course, if these are not whole numbers, the payoff is $0. Now you can continue the interview whether you would cheat if you are guaranteed not to get caught, as it is the assumption you made for Ballmer here ;)

jhfdbkofdchk 2y ago

I always felt that part of the interview process is the candidate asking clarifying questions as well as making and stating assumptions.

mdswanson 2y ago
It is. Or at least it was for some of us. I didn't care if the candidate ever got the right answer. I cared about the thinking, the questions, the strategies, and the conversation.
- TZubiri 2y ago
  And if some interpretations lead to trivial solutions, but one leads to a complex problem, it's likely that their intention is the latter. A kind of tacit communication
  - MarkusQ 2y ago
    Actually, it may just as likely be that the interviewer is looking to see if you over complicate things. So _ask_.
jnordwick 2y ago
I hate that. It turns the problem into one of those lateral thinking puzzles we were told some basic information and then the answer winds up being something totally wildly different. It wasn't being very random in the end not being very productive
- kadoban 2y ago
  Are we describing interviews here, or the process of software engineering in practice? It could be either imo. Those clarifying questions and some of the thinking through consequences are the only really topical part of SE interviews, the rest is just math you won't use on the job 99.99% of the time anyway.

petesergeant 2y ago

> it is always interesting what is an acceptable trick and what is not I have not found the type of person who asks trick questions to be the type of person who finds it interesting to have the trick questions they've posed to be prodded. Completely tangential, but something I enjoyed reading that feels in the same realm: https://blog.plover.com/math/logic/annoying-boxes-solution.html https://blog.plover.com/math/logic/annoying-boxes-solution.h...

krackers 2y ago
>I enjoyed reading that feels in the same realm [annoying boxes] I had to reread that a few times to figure out what he was saying. All that comes down to is the fact that in his presentation technically there's nothing linking the propositional value of the box labels to the box contents. In most puzzles this linkage specified "outside the puzzle world" but in this case it's specified "inside the puzzle world" and so nothing can be deduced from it. But any sane person would assume the two align (especially in the setting of a puzzle), and so there's the gotcha. Seems very different from the kind of "trick" questions in interview which are closer to one-way questions where the problem is trivial with some key insight but quite hard otherwise.
- petesergeant 2y ago
  > any sane person would assume I disagree, and when I first encountered it it seemed pretty obvious to me, but maybe I’m just used to question where the answer can be “not enough information”
- dullcrisp 2y ago
  I assume the real point of the puzzle (which is lost in the post) is to demonstrate how not all statements have a definite truth value. If we assume that the label on the red box must be either true or false then we can prove that the treasure is in the red box. We’d be wrong though, since the treasure is in the green box.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago

jonahx 2y ago

Technically true but if real numbers are allowed you don't have a puzzle. Rather, you have a silly puzzle that consists in checking if the interviewee will say, "Waaaiiiit a second, is any number allowed? Because then you can never win!" and the interviewer saying, "Nicely done!". Nevertheless, the assumption should be stated. The random selection omission is intentional.

rileymat2 2y ago
And that's all hinged in the expectations of the intent of the question, if it is attention to details, the real number scenario is completely reasonable. If it is not, you can pick apart these types of puzzles and seem overly hard to work with.

drewcoo 2y ago

Those problems allow follow-up questions to better define things. In fact, as initially stated, the problems are usually so vague as to require follow-ups.

GuB-42 2y ago

It also doesn't mention if Ballmer is able to change the number during the game. If he is only "thinking" about a number without writing it down beforehand, nothing stops him from doing it, as long as it is consistent with all the statements he made. This trick actually makes the problem easier, you always need 7 tries, and the payoff, and not just the expected value is $940. Of course, if these are not whole numbers, the payoff is $0. Now you can continue the interview whether you would cheat if you are guaranteed not to get caught, as it is the assumption you made for Ballmer here ;)