3 ms·
The author does say that the Parrondo's paradox only works if the games are not independent. It still is paradoxal that "A combination of losing strategies beco
by legaultmarc 14y ago
The author does say that the Parrondo's paradox only works if the games are not independent. It still is paradoxal that "A combination of losing strategies becomes a winning strategy".
- Dylan16807 14y agoIt's only 'paradoxical' when the details of the games are sufficiently obscured. If you word it as "a combination of losing strategies becomes a winning strategy" many people will be surprised and ask you to explain. If you word it as "losing in A adds to the prize in B, so playing both beats the house" people aren't going to be impressed. note: used a simpler A/B mechanic than the blog post for illustration purposes
- Evbn 14y agoThat's what "paradox" is: when a simple model or explanation seems to show a contradiction, and a more sophisticated model is needed to understand the situation.
- Dylan16807 14y agoBut in this case the 'simple model' is less 'simple' and more 'misleading'. Something should be a paradox without trickery. Someone hiding invalid division to make 1=2 is not a paradox. "Set of sets that don't contain themselves" is a paradox.