3 ms·
The guru does provide very indirect meta-information. Everyone's inaction cannot be taken as information on the first day, but inaction over time can. Consider
by ProblemFactory 13y ago
The guru does provide very indirect meta-information. Everyone's inaction cannot be taken as information on the first day, but inaction over time can.
Consider the case with 100 brown and 1 blue person (+ guru). As soon as the guru speaks, the blue person knows their eye colour and leaves.
Consider the case with 100 brown and 2 blue people. After the guru speaks, both of the blue people still don't know their own eye colour - the guru could have been thinking of the other one. So both blue people stay on the island on the first night. The other one staying on the island is information to the each of the blue people. Because the other blue one didn't leave on the first night, they must be also unsure - and therefore they must have blue eyes themselves. Both leave on second night.
See also: http://img.spikedmath.com/comics/445-three-logicians-walk-into-a-bar.png http://img.spikedmath.com/comics/445-three-logicians-walk-in...
- ampersandy 13y agoExactly this; ProblemFactory has shown how the guru provides directly actionable information for the simplest case of the problem (1 blue eyed islander) and also highlighted the inductive step that leads to a proof for any number of blue eyed islanders. Reducing to the simplest scenario and building (as ProblemFactory) has done, makes the result much more intuitive -- as it does in most proofs, really. Also, the logicians comic is wonderful :)