Daily reminder that these are homework threads in disguise

...

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
twitter.com/AnonBabble

no, this is a meme thread.

Who is this stupid fucking anime redhead girl and why does she get posted all the time

desu you talk about homework threads in disguise while i see 2 homeworkthreads up atm not even close to being in disguise and 2 threads for advice. people just troll or dont read the rules i dont even know anymore. also simon is annoying.

Steins;Gate

I feel like im the only one lurking here r8now.
HELP are you there anyone ?

I am here. PhysicsForums is great for discussing science, but I like Veeky Forums due to the fact that it anonymous and doesn't have the upvote and name system that other forums have.

We need to crack down on these homework threads or make a stickied thread specifically for homework and possibly make infographics. I miss the actual posts about SpaceX rockets and other breakthroughs.

The answer is C but it has to be selected non-randomly. Any randomly chosen answer will be inconsistent with the percentages in the question. Hence there is a 0% chance of randomly being correct. Note that any solution that randomly picks C will also be wrong.

but if you pick C then you are right, hence you have no 0% chance of winning.

That is actually one of the few animes worth watching it, so don't mess with her

what is that anime name ?

If I HAD to pick one randomly, I would have a 25% chance to be right, so I pick A and D as correct awnsers

Steins;gate

no because if youre right with 25% then you have two pissibilities to be right which implies you have a 50% chance of being right. leave Veeky Forums plx

0% chance of being randomly correct. You are be correct if you pick C 100% of the time.

...

you dont understand. when you are correct you cant have a chance of 0% to be correct. this problem is unsolvable.

1/2 with current knowledge.

You don't understand my point. There are two modes of answering the question: randomly, and non-randomly.
The question is given in terms of randomly chosen answers. Once you analyse the problem and see that it can't be solved randomly you can still give the non-random answer that isn't affected by the restrictions in the question.

tl;dr
random C = wrong
non-random C = correct

The only anime worth watching is Legend of the galactic heroes.

Anything else is weeb trash.

the non random answer must still be internally consistent with the logic. since its not, you can say that the problem is unsolvable and that the chance to solve it is 0% BUT you would still not have answered the question because then the answer and the chance would mutually exluse themselves or sth like that if you know what i mean.

It never asked me to pick only 1 awnser, it asked me how much chance I had to be right if I were to pick only one box out of 4
the awnser doesn't need to be A B C or whatv, it just a probability
my chance is .25
And I don't have a 50% chance of being right since I'm just right

well no when you look like that on the problem its 0%

Wrong, try again. Show your work.

not 25%

which work ? it can either be top or bottom so 1/2
prove me wrong faggot.

Top and bottom do not have the same chance of containing a mine. If I explained why I would be giving you the answer. If you admit you're a brainlet I will post the answer.

ok i will do it but wait.

I'm going to bed, so I'm not going to fall for that old trick. Here's the answer, brainlet.

No they're not, and even if they were they would still be better than the /pol/ cancer polluting our front page.

6/7.

I never said that C) isn't correct.Pick whatever make sense to you, since the only correct statement without contradiction you can do is that there is a paradoxe

Close, but wrong.

1/3 or 1/7, depending on your sigma algebra.

Nope, not even close.

My answer is internally consistent. The assumption that random and non-random answers are equivalent is just a convention. This question is unsolvable if you accept that assumption. If you reject it then you can treat random and non-random as independent and use the lack of a random solution to infer what the non-random solution must be.

Usually the problem would go like this
no solution -> 0% chance of randomly being correct
0% chance of randomly being correct -> 25% chance of randomly being correct by picking C
These two statements contradict hence no solution and we go back to the first statement, looping forever.

But if you abandon the assumption that random and non-random answers are equivalent it goes like this
no random solution -> 0% chance of randomly being correct [NON RANDOM] (not random because inferred logically)
0% chance of randomly being correct [NON RANDOM] (NOT ->) 25% chance of randomly being correct by picking C
0% chance of randomly being correct [NON RANDOM] -> correct by picking C non-randomly
Since there is no contradiction this method must be correct and the answer is C when chosen non-randomly.

sorry, i dont understand kombinatorics and nchoose k stuff yet cause i never looked into that. thats why i couldntdo it fast.

Wait never mind, I answered the wrong question. The correct answer requires more work than I want to do.

being correct by picking c non-randomly every time:
>100% chance of being correct
>contradicts answer of 0% being correct
>wrong answer

Intuitively you can understand it as there being a higher chance there are only two mines rather than three mines in the 9 spaces we have information about, since overall there's only one mine for every 7.6 spaces. You also need to look at how those two or three mines can be distributed.

intuitively i had an approximation (6/7) which was too high.

How did you reach that approximation?

>contradicts answer of 0% being correct
No contradiction here. You are still assuming non-random answers and random answers are equivalent. Read my previous post more carefully.

This is how the chain of logic goes when you differentiate random and non-random, which you haven't done.
>100% chance of being correct by picking C non-randomly
>C points at 0% chance of being correct by picking an answer randomly
>correct answer
there is no contradiction

Ah never mind, I see what you did.

yes ok youre right. the question is formulated your way. that is retarded btw.

The question is retarded, but in a good way. This is one of those problems that a computer would struggle with because it's self-referential and breaks into infinite loops without an obvious exit.

Being able to solve these kinds of problems is what makes us more valuable than AI and is probably the only thing that will keep us from being replaced by them.

nah,m if the computer would understand words, he would simply put this random and not random into another set and could solve it just as well.

> Don't answer the question and get 100% on exam.
> Jealous Veeky Forums n00bs ask how.
> Tells n00bs to go look at answer key which is blank.
> Remember kiddies. Sometimes the answer is the empty set, especially when dealing with paradoxical, logically inconsistent questions.

didnt understand that the problem asks for manual input even we discussed it before

>mfw

Dammit. You are right. My bad.

> Takes a closer look at grade. '10' end up being smudge marks. 0% on exam.

But there is no reason for a computer to try that. It would try it naively like most people and get no solution. Why would it keep going and look for a solution if it doesn't know if one exists beforehand. What would it try first after finding no solution? It's not obvious, and probably impossible to have a general strategy for problems which may or may not have an answer.

I thought this problem was just a troll for a very long time, but after seeing it come up many times I noticed that I was assuming there was no way of knowing whether someone randomly picked an answer or whether it wasn't random just by looking at their choice, hence both cases must be equivalent. Then at some point I noticed that if I could tell random and non-random apart then the question only imposed conditions on the random set and I could answer non-randomly and still be consistent with the problem given.

I am not even sure if the author of the problem intended to be solved like this, but either way it was a fun thought exercise.

what ?
you can just implement that in your program if you wish that it has this ability.

Maybe if you have this exact problem hard coded in with the solution then sure, but I'm talking about a general problem solving algorithm.

To answer this you need to know whether or not the problem terminates to a solution or whether it loops due to broken logic or paradoxes. But the halting problem states that this impossible to determine this in general. I solved it by believing that there is a solution if I start twisting assumptions, but I wasn't justified in believing that, I could've been just wasting time. So my method doesn't work in general and not for a computer because a computer could get stuck on a similar problem trying to reinterpret the question till the end of time and not get an answer because the question was truly unsolvable.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
Fascinating stuff really.

The halting problem says that it's undecidable to determine if a turing machine will halt. That does not mean there is not a subset of problems for which there is a terminating algorithm.

We might not know beforehand which problems our algorithm terminates for (if we try to check problems that we don't already know are decidable), so we can do what a human would do and give up after some amount of time, unless we find the answer first.

I didn't emphasize it enough but my main point is that the computer is allowed to give up too.

Ok I get it now. Feels kind of wrong to me for a computer to give up on a problem that I give it, but that doesn't mean the computer is worse than a human. Guess automation replacing us really is inevitable.

Still I would be very surprised if I live to a time where some general kind of AI gives the same solution to this problem as I did.

>character is a "channer"
>worth watching

Choosing C creates a pair of socks and I jump through the worm hole and hopefully the next reality has Emma Watson with bigger boobs.

>I miss the actual posts about SpaceX rockets and other breakthroughs.
Sir the site you are looking for is called reddit.

Makise Kurisu, our Veeky Forumsfu

Is it that time again?

Fuck anime

We should stop with technology before it gets smarter than us I agree with you. There are no correct answers btw.

I have several of these, m'nigga

Existence of a global section implies that there exists a trivialization of the manifold.

>Characters blocking the text
Who made these stupid shit?

some autistic mathematical physicist who jerks off to books entitled "geometric methods for physicists" and the such like