The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Simon Says wrote:
> Haven't followed this thread so I don't know if anyone has done this
> one yet.
>
> Rosalind has won on a wierd Japanese gameshow that involved sitting in
> icebaths for eight hours at a time and having various items of fruit
> smashed on her person. She's cold, and sticky, but she's won.
>
> She has to choose one of three boxes. One contains a brand spanking
> new X box with DOA BV, the other two contain some dog poo. Ros doesn't
> know which is which, but she chooses the middle one. At this point the
> host opens one of the other boxes to reveal some dog poo, and offers
> her the chance to change her mind and pick the other remaining box.
>
> Should she do it?
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.
> Haven't followed this thread so I don't know if anyone has done this
> one yet.
>
> Rosalind has won on a wierd Japanese gameshow that involved sitting in
> icebaths for eight hours at a time and having various items of fruit
> smashed on her person. She's cold, and sticky, but she's won.
>
> She has to choose one of three boxes. One contains a brand spanking
> new X box with DOA BV, the other two contain some dog poo. Ros doesn't
> know which is which, but she chooses the middle one. At this point the
> host opens one of the other boxes to reveal some dog poo, and offers
> her the chance to change her mind and pick the other remaining box.
>
> Should she do it?
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.
Gangsta Hamsta wrote:
> The Sheep's ffate is decided by whether there are even or odd numbers
> of lions.
>
> Try it with 1 Sheep, 1 lion
> 1 sheep 2 lions
> 1 sheep 3 lions
> and 1 sheep 4 lions.
>
> You'll see what I mean.
I agree that the sheep survives, but I'm not so sure I agree with your reasoning.
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!
> The Sheep's ffate is decided by whether there are even or odd numbers
> of lions.
>
> Try it with 1 Sheep, 1 lion
> 1 sheep 2 lions
> 1 sheep 3 lions
> and 1 sheep 4 lions.
>
> You'll see what I mean.
I agree that the sheep survives, but I'm not so sure I agree with your reasoning.
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!
VenomByte wrote:
> Rosalind wrote:
> But in that case the lion could eat the sheep because he knows the
> next lion will not eat the sheep, because of your logic above ;)
>
> If one lion reasons that way, they all do. Therefore, the sheep would
> get eaten every time. Therefore no lion can afford to turn into a
> sheep, therefore the sheep will not be eaten :)
>
>
> I have a similar problem...
>
> A man is imprisoned, waiting for execution. He is told that he will be
> killed some time in the next seven days, but he will not know which
> day he will be killed.
>
> The prisoner reasons that if he isn't dead on the morning of the
> seventh day, it's his last day so he'd have to be killed. However,
> that means that if he woke up on that morning he would know what day
> he was going to die. As he can't know, he reasons that he cannot be
> killed on the seventh day.
>
> Knowing that there is no way he can be killled on the seventh day, he
> applied the same reasoning to the sixth day. If he hasn't been killed
> by then, he won't be because he'd know about it. Therefore he's safe
> on the sixth day, too.
>
> Following this logic on, he then workds out that he can't be killed on
> the fith, fourth, third, second or first days either. So he can't be
> killed.
>
> At noon on the fourth day, he was killed. He wasn't expecting this.
> Where is the hole in his logic?
at the beginning
"given he wakes up on the seventh day"
he didn't.
> Rosalind wrote:
> But in that case the lion could eat the sheep because he knows the
> next lion will not eat the sheep, because of your logic above ;)
>
> If one lion reasons that way, they all do. Therefore, the sheep would
> get eaten every time. Therefore no lion can afford to turn into a
> sheep, therefore the sheep will not be eaten :)
>
>
> I have a similar problem...
>
> A man is imprisoned, waiting for execution. He is told that he will be
> killed some time in the next seven days, but he will not know which
> day he will be killed.
>
> The prisoner reasons that if he isn't dead on the morning of the
> seventh day, it's his last day so he'd have to be killed. However,
> that means that if he woke up on that morning he would know what day
> he was going to die. As he can't know, he reasons that he cannot be
> killed on the seventh day.
>
> Knowing that there is no way he can be killled on the seventh day, he
> applied the same reasoning to the sixth day. If he hasn't been killed
> by then, he won't be because he'd know about it. Therefore he's safe
> on the sixth day, too.
>
> Following this logic on, he then workds out that he can't be killed on
> the fith, fourth, third, second or first days either. So he can't be
> killed.
>
> At noon on the fourth day, he was killed. He wasn't expecting this.
> Where is the hole in his logic?
at the beginning
"given he wakes up on the seventh day"
he didn't.
Rosalind wrote:
> But in that case the lion could eat the sheep because he knows the
> next lion will not eat the sheep, because of your logic above ;)
If one lion reasons that way, they all do. Therefore, the sheep would get eaten every time. Therefore no lion can afford to turn into a sheep, therefore the sheep will not be eaten :)
I have a similar problem...
A man is imprisoned, waiting for execution. He is told that he will be killed some time in the next seven days, but he will not know which day he will be killed.
The prisoner reasons that if he isn't dead on the morning of the seventh day, it's his last day so he'd have to be killed. However, that means that if he woke up on that morning he would know what day he was going to die. As he can't know, he reasons that he cannot be killed on the seventh day.
Knowing that there is no way he can be killled on the seventh day, he applied the same reasoning to the sixth day. If he hasn't been killed by then, he won't be because he'd know about it. Therefore he's safe on the sixth day, too.
Following this logic on, he then workds out that he can't be killed on the fith, fourth, third, second or first days either. So he can't be killed.
At noon on the fourth day, he was killed. He wasn't expecting this. Where is the hole in his logic?
> But in that case the lion could eat the sheep because he knows the
> next lion will not eat the sheep, because of your logic above ;)
If one lion reasons that way, they all do. Therefore, the sheep would get eaten every time. Therefore no lion can afford to turn into a sheep, therefore the sheep will not be eaten :)
I have a similar problem...
A man is imprisoned, waiting for execution. He is told that he will be killed some time in the next seven days, but he will not know which day he will be killed.
The prisoner reasons that if he isn't dead on the morning of the seventh day, it's his last day so he'd have to be killed. However, that means that if he woke up on that morning he would know what day he was going to die. As he can't know, he reasons that he cannot be killed on the seventh day.
Knowing that there is no way he can be killled on the seventh day, he applied the same reasoning to the sixth day. If he hasn't been killed by then, he won't be because he'd know about it. Therefore he's safe on the sixth day, too.
Following this logic on, he then workds out that he can't be killed on the fith, fourth, third, second or first days either. So he can't be killed.
At noon on the fourth day, he was killed. He wasn't expecting this. Where is the hole in his logic?
Haven't followed this thread so I don't know if anyone has done this one yet.
Rosalind has won on a wierd Japanese gameshow that involved sitting in icebaths for eight hours at a time and having various items of fruit smashed on her person. She's cold, and sticky, but she's won.
She has to choose one of three boxes. One contains a brand spanking new X box with DOA BV, the other two contain some dog poo. Ros doesn't know which is which, but she chooses the middle one. At this point the host opens one of the other boxes to reveal some dog poo, and offers her the chance to change her mind and pick the other remaining box.
Should she do it?
Rosalind has won on a wierd Japanese gameshow that involved sitting in icebaths for eight hours at a time and having various items of fruit smashed on her person. She's cold, and sticky, but she's won.
She has to choose one of three boxes. One contains a brand spanking new X box with DOA BV, the other two contain some dog poo. Ros doesn't know which is which, but she chooses the middle one. At this point the host opens one of the other boxes to reveal some dog poo, and offers her the chance to change her mind and pick the other remaining box.
Should she do it?
Yeah I had just got it.
If there is an odd number of lions then the logic will end at eating the sheep.
If there are an even number of lions (as in this case) then the logic will end at not eating the sheep, so this sheep os safe, at least as long as all 100 lions stay alive.
If there is an odd number of lions then the logic will end at eating the sheep.
If there are an even number of lions (as in this case) then the logic will end at not eating the sheep, so this sheep os safe, at least as long as all 100 lions stay alive.
Ahh...I geddit!
Heh heh!
Heh heh!
Rosalind wrote:
> But he must also know the the next lion may also think this way too,
> so presuambly he won't risk it.
>
> I dunno
The answer is indeed, as you seem to be indicating, that the sheep survives.
The Sheep's ffate is decided by whether there are even or odd numbers of lions.
Try it with 1 Sheep, 1 lion
1 sheep 2 lions
1 sheep 3 lions
and 1 sheep 4 lions.
You'll see what I mean.
> But he must also know the the next lion may also think this way too,
> so presuambly he won't risk it.
>
> I dunno
The answer is indeed, as you seem to be indicating, that the sheep survives.
The Sheep's ffate is decided by whether there are even or odd numbers of lions.
Try it with 1 Sheep, 1 lion
1 sheep 2 lions
1 sheep 3 lions
and 1 sheep 4 lions.
You'll see what I mean.
Yeah, this one had me puzzled.
'Tis a bit strange.
'Tis a bit strange.
Gangsta Hamsta wrote:
> Rosalind wrote:
> But in that case the lion could eat the sheep because he knows the
> next lion will not eat the sheep, because of your logic above ;)
>
> Heh, very good, you're getting there.
But he must also know the the next lion may also think this way too, so presuambly he won't risk it.
I dunno
> Rosalind wrote:
> But in that case the lion could eat the sheep because he knows the
> next lion will not eat the sheep, because of your logic above ;)
>
> Heh, very good, you're getting there.
But he must also know the the next lion may also think this way too, so presuambly he won't risk it.
I dunno
Page: