▲ 413 ▼ Probability (reddthat.com) submitted 3 months ago by DrBanjo@reddthat.com to c/mathmemes@lemmy.blahaj.zone 116 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] arsCynic@piefed.social 28 points 3 months ago (12 children) This. I.e., there is no correct answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] harmbugler@piefed.social 12 points 3 months ago (11 children) Sooo, C? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 3 months ago (2 children) if c was correct then it would be 25% then 50% and then 25% again ans 50% and 25% permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] recursivethinking@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) Write -in, E, none of the above permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) E) actual 0%, the above C is a null value incorrectly written as a numeric 0% permalink fedilink source parent [–] Klear@piefed.world 7 points 3 months ago False permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 months ago* (5 children) The answer "there is no correct answer" is correct, but the answer isn't 0%. It's a paradox. There isn't a solution, which isn't the same thing as saying there's a 0% chance of getting the right solution (when that is one of the choices). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 5 points 3 months ago* (4 children) Essentially there's a difference between "0% of answers will be correct (because none can be)" and "the listed 0%-option self-invalidates if selected". The problem is the interaction between answers that shouldn't be there in normal tests, which changes the values after selection. Therefore, the only winning move is not to play. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] harmbugler@piefed.social 1 point 3 months ago (3 children) Well I'm not picking it at random, so C is correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children) If c is correct for you then it's also correct for those who answered at random. And if it is, then you're all wrong because you're answering about those who answered at random. The only viable approach to actually answer is to argue that the question is ambiguous and that while the hypothetical test takers face infinite recursion you the real test taker don't have to resolve the infinite recursion and to then choose a place to halt evaluation. And if they disagree then your solution to the Halting problem invoke the all powerful oracle function "I'll talk to the principal". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 point 3 months ago* (1 child) It's not necessary to use recursion. Simple logic solves it. If a or c are true, that implies a and c are not true. If b is true, that implies b isn't true. If d is true, that implies d isn't true. No recursion needed and this is complete. You could take a recursive approach, but it doesn't halt, like you said, so it doesn't give a result. (Also, the halting problem is determining if something halts, not what the value is at the end. This problem does not halt, if done recursively. The halting problem is easy to resolve for this particular problem.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago* Thus the joke form, using the principal as a Halting oracle (going up a hierarchy (of complexity)), phrased such that it allows you to select an answer as correct rather than leaving it undecidable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_jump No need for the oracle to actually be correct in the joke form btw permalink fedilink source parent [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 3 months ago permalink fedilink source parent
[–] harmbugler@piefed.social 12 points 3 months ago (11 children) Sooo, C? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 3 months ago (2 children) if c was correct then it would be 25% then 50% and then 25% again ans 50% and 25% permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] recursivethinking@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) Write -in, E, none of the above permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) E) actual 0%, the above C is a null value incorrectly written as a numeric 0% permalink fedilink source parent [–] Klear@piefed.world 7 points 3 months ago False permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 months ago* (5 children) The answer "there is no correct answer" is correct, but the answer isn't 0%. It's a paradox. There isn't a solution, which isn't the same thing as saying there's a 0% chance of getting the right solution (when that is one of the choices). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 5 points 3 months ago* (4 children) Essentially there's a difference between "0% of answers will be correct (because none can be)" and "the listed 0%-option self-invalidates if selected". The problem is the interaction between answers that shouldn't be there in normal tests, which changes the values after selection. Therefore, the only winning move is not to play. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] harmbugler@piefed.social 1 point 3 months ago (3 children) Well I'm not picking it at random, so C is correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children) If c is correct for you then it's also correct for those who answered at random. And if it is, then you're all wrong because you're answering about those who answered at random. The only viable approach to actually answer is to argue that the question is ambiguous and that while the hypothetical test takers face infinite recursion you the real test taker don't have to resolve the infinite recursion and to then choose a place to halt evaluation. And if they disagree then your solution to the Halting problem invoke the all powerful oracle function "I'll talk to the principal". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 point 3 months ago* (1 child) It's not necessary to use recursion. Simple logic solves it. If a or c are true, that implies a and c are not true. If b is true, that implies b isn't true. If d is true, that implies d isn't true. No recursion needed and this is complete. You could take a recursive approach, but it doesn't halt, like you said, so it doesn't give a result. (Also, the halting problem is determining if something halts, not what the value is at the end. This problem does not halt, if done recursively. The halting problem is easy to resolve for this particular problem.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago* Thus the joke form, using the principal as a Halting oracle (going up a hierarchy (of complexity)), phrased such that it allows you to select an answer as correct rather than leaving it undecidable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_jump No need for the oracle to actually be correct in the joke form btw permalink fedilink source parent [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 3 months ago permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Untamed_Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 3 months ago (2 children) if c was correct then it would be 25% then 50% and then 25% again ans 50% and 25% permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] recursivethinking@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) Write -in, E, none of the above permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) E) actual 0%, the above C is a null value incorrectly written as a numeric 0% permalink fedilink source parent
[–] recursivethinking@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) Write -in, E, none of the above permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) E) actual 0%, the above C is a null value incorrectly written as a numeric 0% permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) E) actual 0%, the above C is a null value incorrectly written as a numeric 0% permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 months ago* (5 children) The answer "there is no correct answer" is correct, but the answer isn't 0%. It's a paradox. There isn't a solution, which isn't the same thing as saying there's a 0% chance of getting the right solution (when that is one of the choices). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 5 points 3 months ago* (4 children) Essentially there's a difference between "0% of answers will be correct (because none can be)" and "the listed 0%-option self-invalidates if selected". The problem is the interaction between answers that shouldn't be there in normal tests, which changes the values after selection. Therefore, the only winning move is not to play. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] harmbugler@piefed.social 1 point 3 months ago (3 children) Well I'm not picking it at random, so C is correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children) If c is correct for you then it's also correct for those who answered at random. And if it is, then you're all wrong because you're answering about those who answered at random. The only viable approach to actually answer is to argue that the question is ambiguous and that while the hypothetical test takers face infinite recursion you the real test taker don't have to resolve the infinite recursion and to then choose a place to halt evaluation. And if they disagree then your solution to the Halting problem invoke the all powerful oracle function "I'll talk to the principal". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 point 3 months ago* (1 child) It's not necessary to use recursion. Simple logic solves it. If a or c are true, that implies a and c are not true. If b is true, that implies b isn't true. If d is true, that implies d isn't true. No recursion needed and this is complete. You could take a recursive approach, but it doesn't halt, like you said, so it doesn't give a result. (Also, the halting problem is determining if something halts, not what the value is at the end. This problem does not halt, if done recursively. The halting problem is easy to resolve for this particular problem.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago* Thus the joke form, using the principal as a Halting oracle (going up a hierarchy (of complexity)), phrased such that it allows you to select an answer as correct rather than leaving it undecidable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_jump No need for the oracle to actually be correct in the joke form btw permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 5 points 3 months ago* (4 children) Essentially there's a difference between "0% of answers will be correct (because none can be)" and "the listed 0%-option self-invalidates if selected". The problem is the interaction between answers that shouldn't be there in normal tests, which changes the values after selection. Therefore, the only winning move is not to play. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] harmbugler@piefed.social 1 point 3 months ago (3 children) Well I'm not picking it at random, so C is correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children) If c is correct for you then it's also correct for those who answered at random. And if it is, then you're all wrong because you're answering about those who answered at random. The only viable approach to actually answer is to argue that the question is ambiguous and that while the hypothetical test takers face infinite recursion you the real test taker don't have to resolve the infinite recursion and to then choose a place to halt evaluation. And if they disagree then your solution to the Halting problem invoke the all powerful oracle function "I'll talk to the principal". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 point 3 months ago* (1 child) It's not necessary to use recursion. Simple logic solves it. If a or c are true, that implies a and c are not true. If b is true, that implies b isn't true. If d is true, that implies d isn't true. No recursion needed and this is complete. You could take a recursive approach, but it doesn't halt, like you said, so it doesn't give a result. (Also, the halting problem is determining if something halts, not what the value is at the end. This problem does not halt, if done recursively. The halting problem is easy to resolve for this particular problem.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago* Thus the joke form, using the principal as a Halting oracle (going up a hierarchy (of complexity)), phrased such that it allows you to select an answer as correct rather than leaving it undecidable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_jump No need for the oracle to actually be correct in the joke form btw permalink fedilink source parent
[–] harmbugler@piefed.social 1 point 3 months ago (3 children) Well I'm not picking it at random, so C is correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children) If c is correct for you then it's also correct for those who answered at random. And if it is, then you're all wrong because you're answering about those who answered at random. The only viable approach to actually answer is to argue that the question is ambiguous and that while the hypothetical test takers face infinite recursion you the real test taker don't have to resolve the infinite recursion and to then choose a place to halt evaluation. And if they disagree then your solution to the Halting problem invoke the all powerful oracle function "I'll talk to the principal". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 point 3 months ago* (1 child) It's not necessary to use recursion. Simple logic solves it. If a or c are true, that implies a and c are not true. If b is true, that implies b isn't true. If d is true, that implies d isn't true. No recursion needed and this is complete. You could take a recursive approach, but it doesn't halt, like you said, so it doesn't give a result. (Also, the halting problem is determining if something halts, not what the value is at the end. This problem does not halt, if done recursively. The halting problem is easy to resolve for this particular problem.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago* Thus the joke form, using the principal as a Halting oracle (going up a hierarchy (of complexity)), phrased such that it allows you to select an answer as correct rather than leaving it undecidable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_jump No need for the oracle to actually be correct in the joke form btw permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children) If c is correct for you then it's also correct for those who answered at random. And if it is, then you're all wrong because you're answering about those who answered at random. The only viable approach to actually answer is to argue that the question is ambiguous and that while the hypothetical test takers face infinite recursion you the real test taker don't have to resolve the infinite recursion and to then choose a place to halt evaluation. And if they disagree then your solution to the Halting problem invoke the all powerful oracle function "I'll talk to the principal". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 point 3 months ago* (1 child) It's not necessary to use recursion. Simple logic solves it. If a or c are true, that implies a and c are not true. If b is true, that implies b isn't true. If d is true, that implies d isn't true. No recursion needed and this is complete. You could take a recursive approach, but it doesn't halt, like you said, so it doesn't give a result. (Also, the halting problem is determining if something halts, not what the value is at the end. This problem does not halt, if done recursively. The halting problem is easy to resolve for this particular problem.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago* Thus the joke form, using the principal as a Halting oracle (going up a hierarchy (of complexity)), phrased such that it allows you to select an answer as correct rather than leaving it undecidable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_jump No need for the oracle to actually be correct in the joke form btw permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 point 3 months ago* (1 child) It's not necessary to use recursion. Simple logic solves it. If a or c are true, that implies a and c are not true. If b is true, that implies b isn't true. If d is true, that implies d isn't true. No recursion needed and this is complete. You could take a recursive approach, but it doesn't halt, like you said, so it doesn't give a result. (Also, the halting problem is determining if something halts, not what the value is at the end. This problem does not halt, if done recursively. The halting problem is easy to resolve for this particular problem.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago* Thus the joke form, using the principal as a Halting oracle (going up a hierarchy (of complexity)), phrased such that it allows you to select an answer as correct rather than leaving it undecidable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_jump No need for the oracle to actually be correct in the joke form btw permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago* Thus the joke form, using the principal as a Halting oracle (going up a hierarchy (of complexity)), phrased such that it allows you to select an answer as correct rather than leaving it undecidable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_jump No need for the oracle to actually be correct in the joke form btw permalink fedilink source parent
