The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
My first is in biscuit but never in cake
My second's in awesome but not in great
My third is in mother but not seen in dad
My fourth is in sunny but never in sad
My fifth is a vowel found in water not creek
My sixth is found only in one day of the week
My seventh's two of three that you learn when you're young
My eighth's not in song but it's there when it's sung
My ninth's in eleven and twelve, not thirteen
My tenth is in island and river, not stream
My eleventh's in precious and secret and paste
My twelfth is in phantom and spectre and haste
My whole stalks the night in a quiet dreamlike state
With no memories the next day of being out late
My second's in awesome but not in great
My third is in mother but not seen in dad
My fourth is in sunny but never in sad
My fifth is a vowel found in water not creek
My sixth is found only in one day of the week
My seventh's two of three that you learn when you're young
My eighth's not in song but it's there when it's sung
My ninth's in eleven and twelve, not thirteen
My tenth is in island and river, not stream
My eleventh's in precious and secret and paste
My twelfth is in phantom and spectre and haste
My whole stalks the night in a quiet dreamlike state
With no memories the next day of being out late
Page:
Gangsta Hamsta wrote:
> Yeah but we know if there are 2 lions the sheep survives.
>
> Therefore, in the 3 lions one, the sheep gets eaten, we are left with
> 2 lions and one sheep.
>
> Therefore it would survive
>
> Answer your question?
That makes no sense, sorry.
"Therefore it would survive" refers to the lion that turns into the Sheep.
The original sheep is definately lunch
> Yeah but we know if there are 2 lions the sheep survives.
>
> Therefore, in the 3 lions one, the sheep gets eaten, we are left with
> 2 lions and one sheep.
>
> Therefore it would survive
>
> Answer your question?
That makes no sense, sorry.
"Therefore it would survive" refers to the lion that turns into the Sheep.
The original sheep is definately lunch
Yes, Rosalind should change her choice.
This problem acutally caused several arguments in the mathematical community, but the reason why she should change can be explained well with another example.
Suppose there are a million boxes. Rosalind chooses one. The host then opens all except one of the others. The prize is now behind either that one, or Rosalinds's original one-chance-in-a-million box.
Blatantly, she should change.
This problem acutally caused several arguments in the mathematical community, but the reason why she should change can be explained well with another example.
Suppose there are a million boxes. Rosalind chooses one. The host then opens all except one of the others. The prize is now behind either that one, or Rosalinds's original one-chance-in-a-million box.
Blatantly, she should change.
Yeah, SS, i read it wrong, but now the odds are 50% there is no evidence for her to stay or change.
Slaveunit wrote:
> Simon Says wrote:
> and offers her the chance to change her mind and pick the other
> remaining box.
>
> Should she do it?
>
> Yes. A 50% chance of an xbox is better than a plate of poo, and even
> if she gets the choice wrong, she is no worse off than she was before
> the choice.
I think you misread the problem. Her initial choice has not yet been revealed. She knows she *hasn't* chosen one of the plates of poo.
> Simon Says wrote:
> and offers her the chance to change her mind and pick the other
> remaining box.
>
> Should she do it?
>
> Yes. A 50% chance of an xbox is better than a plate of poo, and even
> if she gets the choice wrong, she is no worse off than she was before
> the choice.
I think you misread the problem. Her initial choice has not yet been revealed. She knows she *hasn't* chosen one of the plates of poo.
Simon Says wrote:
> Unbeliever wrote:
>
> Ros should change as this gives her twice the probability of winning
> the car.
>
> If she sticks with one box, there is a 1/3 chance of winning. The
> other option to change is 2/3 chance of winning.
>
> I think the key is that the host reveals only poo by opening a box.
> There will always be a box with poo. He always opens a box with poo.
>
> Absolutely correct.
once the box has been opened that reduces the chances of me winning down to 50% never mind what the cahnces were when I picked the box in the first place, so I'm not sure this makes sense
> Unbeliever wrote:
>
> Ros should change as this gives her twice the probability of winning
> the car.
>
> If she sticks with one box, there is a 1/3 chance of winning. The
> other option to change is 2/3 chance of winning.
>
> I think the key is that the host reveals only poo by opening a box.
> There will always be a box with poo. He always opens a box with poo.
>
> Absolutely correct.
once the box has been opened that reduces the chances of me winning down to 50% never mind what the cahnces were when I picked the box in the first place, so I'm not sure this makes sense
hang on, read it wrong...
> An infinitely smart and logical lion will reaslise that with e.g three
> lions, the first to eat a sheep will also get eaten, therefore it will
> not eat the sheep!
But he won't get eaten, because if there are an uneven noumber of lions and one eats a sheep, then that will make the number of lions even, so he won't get eaten.
> lions, the first to eat a sheep will also get eaten, therefore it will
> not eat the sheep!
But he won't get eaten, because if there are an uneven noumber of lions and one eats a sheep, then that will make the number of lions even, so he won't get eaten.
VenomByte wrote:
> An infinitely smart and logical lion will reaslise that with e.g three
> lions, the first to eat a sheep will also get eaten, therefore it will
> not eat the sheep!
Yeah but we know if there are 2 lions the sheep survives.
Therefore, in the 3 lions one, the sheep gets eaten, we are left with 2 lions and one sheep.
Therefore it would survive
Answer your question?
> An infinitely smart and logical lion will reaslise that with e.g three
> lions, the first to eat a sheep will also get eaten, therefore it will
> not eat the sheep!
Yeah but we know if there are 2 lions the sheep survives.
Therefore, in the 3 lions one, the sheep gets eaten, we are left with 2 lions and one sheep.
Therefore it would survive
Answer your question?
Unbeliever wrote:
>
> Ros should change as this gives her twice the probability of winning
> the car.
>
> If she sticks with one box, there is a 1/3 chance of winning. The
> other option to change is 2/3 chance of winning.
>
> I think the key is that the host reveals only poo by opening a box.
> There will always be a box with poo. He always opens a box with poo.
Absolutely correct. : )
>
> Ros should change as this gives her twice the probability of winning
> the car.
>
> If she sticks with one box, there is a 1/3 chance of winning. The
> other option to change is 2/3 chance of winning.
>
> I think the key is that the host reveals only poo by opening a box.
> There will always be a box with poo. He always opens a box with poo.
Absolutely correct. : )
Simon Says wrote:
> and offers her the chance to change her mind and pick the other remaining box.
>
> Should she do it?
Yes. A 50% chance of an xbox is better than a plate of poo, and even if she gets the choice wrong, she is no worse off than she was before the choice.
> and offers her the chance to change her mind and pick the other remaining box.
>
> Should she do it?
Yes. A 50% chance of an xbox is better than a plate of poo, and even if she gets the choice wrong, she is no worse off than she was before the choice.
Page: