galumay
learner
- Joined
- 17 September 2011
- Posts
- 3,662
- Reactions
- 2,543
Your whole explanation makes no sense to me! Not saying its wrong, just that I still dont get it!!
If i have picked 1 box out of 100 i have a 1% chance of being correct, if the judge opens 98 of the 99 left and proves they all have nothing in them, we now have 2 boxes, 1 with the pardon, 1 without. Its patently obvious that which ever box you choose has a 50% chance of containing the pardon, so switching cant change your odds.
Your reasoning makes not the slightest sense to my dumb head!!
OK, read the wiki and all i can say is i am happy to be wrong along with so many geniuses and mathematicians! Still dont believe it though.
Here's a simple explanation:
Imagine now instead that instead of revealing a box,
The judge lets you
a) keep your initial choice
b) open BOTH remaining boxes.
b) is now a no brainer (switching) 66% vs 33%
b) is also the same as giving you both boxes (with one already open)
How many have guessed 3 boxes and how many have guessed all 4 boxes correctly?
If they guessed 3 correctly, then they know the fourth as well, so 10 picked all 4 boxes. (and all 3 boxes by definition.)
Yes, or to put it another way, it is impossible to just guess exactly 3 correctly, so 0 guessed and the remaining 10 guessed all 4. Too easy.
Answer: I don't think it's possible.You, a Greek mathematician, are swimming in a perfectly round lake when you see a savage cyclops eying you from the shore. He has manoeuvred to the closest point on the shore to where you currently are and there is nothing he would like more than to eat you. You know the cyclops can't swim, but he can run 4 times faster than you can swim. However, you can run much faster than the cyclops, so you know if you can get to the shore before he gets to you, you can outrun him and escape.
You are a good swimmer and can maintain your maximum speed indefinitely even if it involves sharp changes in direction (e.g. no loss of speed if you switch direction). The same applies to the cyclops. He can run 4 times faster than you can swim and switch direction without loss of pace.
Is it possible for you to get to the shore and escape assuming he always tries to get to the point on the shore where you are trying to swim to? If so, explain how.
Is it possible for you to get to the shore and escape assuming he always tries to get to the point on the shore where you are trying to swim to? If so, explain how.[/B]
So say I am at near 12 o'clock position of the round lake, but quite close to the shore... if I turn around and head towards the 6 o'clock shore, does the cyclop run towards that point?
If so, can I not simply swim slower? Say I swim at a speed such that I am only 1/4 of the way across the lake when the cyclop has already made it to the opposite shore. At which time I simply swim at maximum speed back to the 12 o'clock edge. I only need to swim a distance of 0.5R when the cyclop needs to cover 3.14159R, or >6x as far.
Answer: I don't think it's possible.
So say I am at near 12 o'clock position of the round lake, but quite close to the shore... if I turn around and head towards the 6 o'clock shore, does the cyclop run towards that point?
If so, can I not simply swim slower? Say I swim at a speed such that I am only 1/4 of the way across the lake when the cyclop has already made it to the opposite shore. At which time I simply swim at maximum speed back to the 12 o'clock edge. I only need to swim a distance of 0.5R when the cyclop needs to cover 3.14159R, or >6x as far.
Last Slylock I got.
If you enjoyed, I highly recommend buying the books. For kids/partner/yourself(?)
I think the proof is simply that the angular velocity of the swimmer is always greater than the cyclops provided he stays within 1/4 of the radius, and he can afford to swim slightly further out with each zig. The swimmer would have to consult trig tables to calculate exactly what angle is optimum at each zig & zag, but in practice the swimmer would just swim more parallel with the shore until the cyclops reversed.This is one proof, but as I said, zig zag methods may also prove successful.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?