Schattentänzer on 12/10/2008 at 00:28
Quote:
what can willywu do to save himself from burning to death?!
LancerChronics on 12/10/2008 at 13:38
Sheesh, I've heard all these before. The answers are simple to find. So try this one on for size:
You and your sibling are captured and trapped in separate cells, far away from eachother (so there can be no communication). There is a button in the room. The man that had your captured comes by and tells you the same thing he told your sibling: "In each room I have placed a button. If you press the button and your sibling does not, you will die and they will go free. If they press the button and you do not, they will die and you will go free. If both of your press the button, you both will die. If neither of you press the button (or if you are a whiny little bitch that refuses to choose for more than an hour), you both will die. You have 59 minutes left to decide."
Yes, you've all heard it before. But I'm interested in what various people chose, and their "logic" behind it.
Turtle on 12/10/2008 at 14:08
I'd push the button ASAP to increase the chances of my sibling going free.
LancerChronics on 12/10/2008 at 15:24
Hmm..interesting. That choice is both bold, honorable, and...
Rash. Time is the least important factor in your decision but the most important factor in your survival. By pressing the button, you die instantly and give your sibling a 50/50 chance to survive. They still have to wait out the hour, and there is no way to determine if they have pressed it or not. Personally, I would use my hour to examine my surroundings and see if I can determine HOW he planned on killing me first. Then I would attempt to devise a way to trigger the button but avoid the trap. If I am not successful, I die, still giving my sibling the 50/50 chance. If I am successful, I would end up surviving no matter the outcome, and still give my sibling the 50/50 chance. In a tense situation like this, it seems as if you only have two choices, but there may be another if you take the time to look.
If you haven't decided on an answer for yourself, please don't read the spoiler. I am still curious to how you think.
Kolya on 12/10/2008 at 15:46
More a question of morals than a puzzle it seems. And the moral of the story is that anyone who indulges in constructing weird what-if-shit like this clearly has some issues to work out.
So IF something unlikely like this ever would happen I'd ask the hijacker into my cell with a pretext and then push the button, taking him with me.
Briareos H on 12/10/2008 at 16:04
If still unable to escape as the hour mark is closing in, I'd consider which one of us is the most suited to live on and act accordingly while hoping my "sibling" is clever enough to have the same reasoning.
Gambit on 12/10/2008 at 16:49
The problem here is that naturally both siblings will naturally want the other one to survive (unless they have issues or hate each other).
So they will probably both push the button, sacrificing themselves for nothing since both will be dead.
Once they realise this a sibling can only hope another sibling will not push the button to ensure his survival. But how do you assume your sibling reasoned that it´s you that must survive and not the other way around ?
PS: There´s a similar puzzle like this that is widely used in Game Theory. It´s the prisoner´s dilemma.
You and your friends are robbers. You both manage to pull a succesfull job of robbing the queen´s crown. You both hide the evidence.
However the police found you and your friend. They can´t put you directly into prison since they don´t have the evidence so they decide to play a game.
You are put in a cell and your friend is put in another. No communication between both of you. A cop comes in your cell and tells you what he also told to your friend:
"Both you and your friend can accuse the other of robbery. If you accuse your friend of robbery and he remains silent, you will be FREE and he will go to prison FOR LIFE. If he accuses you of robbery and you remain silent you will go to prison FOR LIFE and he will be FREE. If both of you remain silent then both of you go to prison for 6 MONTHS. If both of you accuse each other then both of you will go to prison for 5 YEARS."
What do you do ?
It´s not exactly a puzzle but a concept to show optimal solutions based on temptation vs chance of gaining.
demagogue on 12/10/2008 at 19:06
Even more specifically, the prisoner's dilemma highlights a barrier to optimality for individual vs group decisions (if the partners can't communicate to each other, their individual incentive is to both talk, which is a lesser equilibrium than both agreeing to stay silent) and we use it all the time for law and econ problems. The best solution is to make an agreement in advance to both stay silent, and if (as often occurs) it's a smaller benefit on one guy to stay silent (e.g., the other guy is much richer), then the poor guy can extract a side-payment from the rich guy to equalize the benefit, and the rich guy should be willing to pay it for insurance. If there's a lot of trials, the optimal strategy is tit-for-tat; do whatever your partner did in the last trial, to reward their silence or punish their talking, and that serves as a kind of indirect communication to bring each other in line to staying silent, either negating any advantage the other guy might have gotten from periodically cheating/talking to make it not worth it, or telling him "if you insist on cheating/talking every time, you'll never do better than this; so why don't you switch?".
As for the siblings problem, if you were thinking about it in utilitarian terms, all things else being equal, the freedom of the younger sibling would be worth more, not just in the sordid terms of making more money, but in living longer they'll have more things to live for, family, career, contribution to society, fulfillment in life, etc. If the older one has more children then that would trump, or is involved in some important project that would save a lot of people, or something like that. Practically, you'd hope both brothers understood the situation clearly, but the "right" thing to do for either individual would be to act in their own situation under the assumption the other one follows suit to that end (older presses the button, younger doesn't). If they are twins, you'd look carefully at their contributions to the family and world -- # children, responsibility, income -- and pick the greater one.
LancerChronics on 12/10/2008 at 20:21
Koyla: I agree, whoever created this does have issues, which is why I am glad it wasn't me. It was posed to the player at the beginning of Baldur's Gate 2, your answer determined how difficult an enemy you would fight after.
Gambit: Yes, it is almost identical to the prisoner's challenge but the version I heard had a less drastic punishment for both talking. 2 years I believe, and 1 year for not, therefore making the idea of ratting out your friend much more desirable since the cost wouldn't be so great if they did to.
Surprisingly enough, my brother happened to be in the room when I was playing the game. So, I told him that in the event that it ever did happen, I would push the button. This is because he is more physically able than I am. Of course, I asked that he hunt down and brutally maim the perpetrator. So, I'm set.
Kolya on 12/10/2008 at 21:20
It's good to be prepared, I guess.
