![]() Blog For Free! Archives Home 2008 June 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2006 December 2006 October 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2005 November 2005 October 2005 February 2005 January 2004 December My Links Home TaBoo's Ezine Navigator The Greatest Maze Sudoku Tips and Tricks Joe User The Phallic Suggestion tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog |
posted by: supremeanna (reply) post date: 04.01.06 (8:21 am) hmmm, i'm sure there's a catch, but i won't be greedy. haha, i'll take both boxes and live with only the ten thousand if that's all i get 10,000 is better than 0 in my opinion, if i get another million, that's just a bonus :0 posted by: jayne d'Arcy (reply) post date: 04.01.06 (8:30 am) I'd have to go for the sure thing. I'd choose both. posted by: tabootenente (reply) post date: 04.02.06 (4:33 am) all right, i'm not giving a solution here, but i will play devil's advocate for the moment. none of you are investors, i see. i'm not much for math (in the end, this really isn't a math riddle--still, it's a good place to start), but think about it in terms of odds. you have two choices: 1. BOTH A AND B --bernard guesses correctly 9 of 10 times. let's suppose, for the sake of the riddle, that bernard might truly be capable of guessing correctly 9 of 10 times. --so, 9 of 10 times, when you choose OPTION#1, you will make $10,000, and 1 of 10 times you will make $1,010,000. --if you were allowed to play OPTION#1 10 tries in a row, you would make $1,100,000 total. nice haul! 2. ONLY B --again, bernard guesses correctly 9 of 10 times. --so, 9 of 10 times, when you choose OPTION#2, you will make $1,000,000, and 1 of 10 times you will make $0. --if you were allowed to play OPTION#2 10 tries in a row, you would make $9,000,000 total. TO RECAP: according to this logic, anyway, you should make slightly less than 9 times as much choosing OPTION#2--statistically. taboo posted by: darksaber (reply) post date: 04.02.06 (7:58 am) Reply to: tabootenente Yes, BUT... Jay Leno's show is not shown on ESPN sportscenter, at least as far as I know. If we are going to believe he can guess 9 out of 10 correctly we might as well believe him when he says how. So instead of having advance knowledge of what I would choose, Lowell would only see blurry reruns of the time that autistic kid scored a lot in his school basketball game. If Lowell was lying about the whole ESP ESPN thing, then B is clearly the better deal. I would choose B, but I'd have to calm myself so I wouldn't explode if I ended up with nothing. -Revan posted by: tabootenente (reply) post date: 04.03.06 (4:02 am) darksaber, good points. so we get into one of the problems with riddles in general: the wording. so many riddles demand, as part of the solution, a careful review of the language. let's say, for the sake of the riddle, that whatever method lowell uses to make his prediction (his ESP/ESPN thing, a team of statisticians, or just a bunch of fellas named guido and nunzio armed with billy clubs) his track record is still documented, and verified by the proper authorities. also, for the sake of the riddle, let's say that his method is useful for making predictions on various propositions (sports bets, SAT questions, or boxes labelled with little A's and B's). even agreeing with all that, you're still right. you've nailed one of the two ideas that create the paradox. the first was probability/risk, and the second was "advance knowledge." how can lowell "know" what you will do? what happens to your power to choose your own destiny? taboo posted by: tabootenente (reply) post date: 04.06.06 (3:56 am) on the other hand, you might wonder about your free will. after all, lowell has already made his prediction, right? you're the one sitting in front of the boxes. he can't swoop in and change his mind, now. maybe you should go ahead and pick both boxes! the money is either there or it isn't. you have the free will to make your choice, right? the past can't control what you do now, right? taboo posted by: Cooper (reply) post date: 04.07.06 (3:39 am) Just discovered your site though blog explosion - it's one of the most interesting I've seen on my travels through. Really interesting posts. This one made my brain hurt - it hurts anyway with this hangover, but nevermind. I'm going to have to get two boxes out. It's easier to think about if I can see them. "get into one of the problems with riddles in general: the wording. so many riddles demand, as part of the solution, a careful review of the language" - I've got a site: http://www.sixlinereviews.com - if you can review your language and get something down to six lines do you reckon you could write one? posted by: tabootenente (reply) post date: 04.07.06 (4:40 am) cooper, i haven't had a chance to browse over to your site, yet. most likely i'll understand the six-line review more clearly when i do. in general, i like the idea of skinning articles down through a series of drafting and editing. wordiness is sloppiness. that's one of the several reasons i like to keep a blog. i'm a blatherer at heart, and if i prevent myself from blathering here, then my blathering will infect my real writing elsewhere. i was writing to someone else about this today: i don't know whether you're familiar with foucault (he's a french philosophicationizer fella, whose name every mfa student carries around in his head--not necessarily because we're so impressed with his ideas, but because it's part of the contract. you drive, you get a driver's license. you're in an mfa program, you're prepared to talk about foucault on a moment's notice) but here's one of his ideas: when he writes, he comes up with an idea, a premise, or even a simple sentence. then he writes and writes, until at last, on page 47, he re-reads his last sentence and says "hello! THAT'S what i was trying to say, and i didn't know it!" hence this blather. without it, my real writing only finds the beginning by stumbling upon it at the end. thanks for your comment--i'll check out your site. taboo posted by: Cooper (reply) post date: 04.07.06 (5:23 am) I can't remember who said "I'm sorry this letter is so long, but I have not had time to make it shorter." but it's the same idea. I like the vague limits of six lines. Some people use it to be very personal and some to be obtuse. posted by: tabootenente (reply) post date: 04.07.06 (7:49 am) cooper: you're looking for a six-line review of my site, an article, or another article? i'll go check out your site. taboo posted by: tabootenente (reply) post date: 04.07.06 (7:52 am) zandperl, thanks--i liked (and linked in my blogroll) your site. some intriguing posts . . . taboo posted by: Cooper (reply) post date: 04.08.06 (12:46 am) Literally a six line review of anything - I like your writing style and it would be interesting to see how you tackle it. Would be good to get some different voices on there. posted by: surrogate (reply) post date: 04.10.06 (4:22 am) I am so confused.... damn. Is this a Hakim's razor thingy? If so? I'll go with the odds. I'll believe in God - but which box is that? I'd think he'd predict that people would take either box A for the sure thing (just in case the scond box held an invoice for ten grand) or both - if that possibility is off the table. posted by: surrogate (reply) post date: 04.10.06 (4:28 am) Reply to: surrogate Oh no... I did it again... I'm always confusing Hakim's razor with Pascal's triangle. Damn these guys for taxing my tiny brain. And I probably misspelled both anyway... Screw it. I want both boxes. posted by: tabootenente (reply) post date: 04.10.06 (6:06 am) i have 10 minutes, here, so forgive any laziness leaking through my thinking. so, you only have two choices: 1. A and B; 2. or only B. statistically speaking: you should choose B--if, of course, you are able to stomach the idea of foreknowledge. there's the risk factor: how much value does 10,000 really have for you? if 10,000 wont affect your life, then why bother choosing both A and B? however, if 10,000 dollars will get you out of max.security prison, or NOT getting 10,000 will ensure that your woman and rob redford will shack up, maybe you ought to stay away from choosing only B. then there's the game theory approach: 1. you'll win the most if you choose both boxes, and lowell predicts you'll only choose B: you get 1,010,000 (you win, lowell loses). 2. you'll lose the most if you choose B and lowell predicts you'll choose both: you get 0 (you lose, lowell loses). 3. you'll win a huge pot of you choose B, and lowell also predicts you'll choose B: you get 1,000,000 (you win, lowell wins). 4. you'll get the consolation prize if you choose both boxes, and lowell predicts you'll choose both: you get 10,000 (you lose, lowell wins--he guesses correctly, and only has to pay the small sum). --game theory says that the only outcome where you both win is when you both choose box B. if you defect, then you win and he loses. if lowell defects and you dont, you both lose. if you both defect, lowell wins and you lose. if you both stay true, you both win. --therefore, says game theory, you should choose box B. however: perhaps the riddle isn't a statistics problem. think about free will. lowell has made a choice (his prediction). you are about to make a choice (both boxes or just box B). 1. lowell's choice has already taken place--can your present-moment choice really relate to the choice he's already made? 2. and if not, then how could he possibly make his predictions so accurately? --the whole esp thing confuses everything. without the idea of esp involved in his prediction-making process, this question would be a much easier one. suppose esp was left out of the riddle: we'd have to assume that his predictions are made based on sound, evaluative judgment--hard work, empathy, understanding of nature both human and other. in this case, he's predicting how your character will inform your choice. that he successfully understands such situations 9 of 10 times suggests that he is capable of knowing you--perhaps more thoroughly than you know yourself. --using esp, however, makes you confront the whole issue of free will and self-determination. who controls whom? is everything cause and effect? if you believe in free will, look at it this way: lowell has already either placed the money in box b, or decided against placing the money in box b. you should now, safely be able to choose BOTH boxes without any fear of losing the 1,000,000 dollars. if he didn't put 1,000,000 in box B, you'll at least get the 10,000. if he didn't put 1,000,000 in box B, then you wont get it anyway, right? no matter what you do, you wont get it, right? if you believe in fate, then you are doomed to win or lose. console yourself with the knowledge that you didn't cause the outcome to occur. your job is simply to understand your unity with the universe. if you're one of them existential fellas, first of all you ought to stay away from the kid's book Goodnight Moon (long story, not relevant, sorry). second, you better choose carefully. no one but you can make the choice you're about to make--and you must be able to live with the consequences. perhaps your choice will affect lowell's choice, jay leno's show, the audience, the world; however, you'll never understand how. there are too many variables: some act upon your decision, some act upon the consequences, some act independently of any of your choice-driven forces. so, if you're a statistics guy, go B. so, if you're an ethical or game theory guy, go B. so, if you dont want rob redford slobbering over your woman, go with both--or check yourself into gambler's anonymous. and this is really just a surface discussion of the riddle. in fact, the paradox has much more depth--clever readers may have spotted the so-called wormholes scattered throughout the riddle and this discussion. i received an email yesterday that identified a central paradox that i hadn't even considered. i don't want to write it here, yet, because it will likely slant the reading/thinking about the riddle. but i'll ask this question now: is there a difference between a riddle, logic problem, math problem, and a paradox? taboo posted by: surrogate (reply) post date: 04.11.06 (5:00 am) taboo, taboo, taboo. Riddle: Why did the chicken cross the road.? Logic problem: Why should the chicken cross the road? Math problem: One chicken. Starts to cross the road and is subsequently subdivided by the front and rear tires of an automobile. With exactly how many pieces of chicken are we left? Paradox: Though indeed taking the action, we can presume that the chicken, though aware it is walking, probably has no ability to discern "road" from "ground." Further, the term "cross" would have no meaning whatsoever to said chicken. To a chicken, I'd guess, movement is, alas, simply a process of getting from 'over here" to "over there." |
|