Any games with difficult decisions?

any games with difficult decisions?

Attached: 1564631077842.png (507x612, 235K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/Ddi2Ijf35ug
youtube.com/watch?v=L4hSh__9YFs
youtube.com/watch?v=TVq2ivVpZgQ
fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cgvienna/eng/dbtyw/jdwt/crimelaw/t209043.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
web.archive.org/web/20140413131827/http://www.decisionsciences.org/DecisionLine/Vol30/30_1/vazs30_1.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=tbNlMtqrYS0
youtube.com/watch?v=tvODuUMLLgM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

is that a train or a wave?

It exhibits the properties of both.

The artist of this drawing did not know that 3-way levers exist.

I feel so sorry for this man's mental deficiencies.

user you just wanted an MXC thread didnt you?
youtu.be/Ddi2Ijf35ug

Yes.

Attached: 1473442975846.png (1022x1325, 508K)

This is this is called the Monty Hall Problem or the Three Doors Paradox.
The answer is to always change your answer. Instinctively your think "the answer is 33% either way, how does changing my answer help?". Except a wrong answer was removed. Which effectively makes it 50/50. But those new odds only apply if you change, otherwise you're still under the old odds.
Another example: Say there are 1 million doors. Only 1 is correct. You choose a door, your odds are 1 in a million. Now I open every door except 2. The correct answer is behind them. Obviously changing doors is the right answer because the odds between the two remaining doors is SIGNIFICANTLY different than when there were a million choices.

>there are still people who unironically think the answer is 2/3
i swear to god you fucks never learn

Attached: 1552653274179.jpg (600x487, 23K)

No, and here's why:
The bodies were placed behind the barrier in the first place. Even if you have a 66% chance of killing only one person by flipping the switch, you are causing an event to happen which may kill five people. By not throwing the switch, you rid yourself of any guilt by action, and rather inaction. If it was beyond your control from inaction, you will walk away guilt free.

answer is yes unless you are in favor of / agnostic about killing more people btw, for anyone wondering

I pretend to wiggle it and say”it was jammed” if anyone asks.

Attached: 1559134674337.jpg (598x543, 36K)

>How is this different/better from the original trolley question besides being retardedly worded and complex
it's just to make people argue about Monty Hall and Trolley at the same time

What a stupid glitch. When will it be patched?

I turn 360 degrees and walk away, this is not my problem.

Well, Yea Forums?

Attached: a trolley problem dance of death.png (698x721, 517K)

the lawyer isn't even tied, can't he just jump off the rails?

I will ask the judge what I should do, since I did it wrong the first time.

he can't. he must constantly point to that picture otherwise you will be put to jail

Attached: eye.jpg (743x306, 41K)

The game is rigged from the start.
The only way this can turn into the 50/50 thing is if they ALWAYS reveal a "wrong" choice:
You have 2 reds & 1 green. 33/33/33
Regardless what you chose, if they open a door and reveal green - only 2 reds will be left so 100% red. The only way this bullshit can work is if they ALWAYS reveal a red - making it a 50/50 thing from the VERY BEGINNING

Attached: co trolley problem girlfriend family isnt home.jpg (800x800, 90K)

I told you not to make rails

Attached: q2f7dih8fkp11.jpg (1242x1536, 121K)

I pulled the lever, yet I am not the murderer

Attached: 1466374939825.jpg (707x449, 123K)

1/3, 1/3, 1/3
Pick one, your answer is 1/3.
The other doors are now 2/3.
1/3

Wholesome.

What the fuck I had no idea Bumblefoot did the theme to MXC

You just blew my fucking mind, user

Attached: RON_THAL_084.jpg (500x500, 28K)

EZ MFC nigga

I'll ask the one guy if he likes anime and if he says yes I'll run him over 54 times

You're already culpable.
You made the original choice. You're already part of the situation.

I love trolley threads

Is it not murder if the victims are already cooked?

Attached: fox_tram.jpg (1900x1100, 187K)

shit, I miss someBODY posting.

Attached: b51.jpg (500x308, 17K)

>The other doors are now 2/3
fuck goddamn you're the reason people get it wrong
the probability never changes. the probability is never combined. the doors are always separate and so is their individual properties.
each door is always 1/3. when you remove a door the total becomes 2/3 which is split between the remaining two doors.

Attached: 1558753190881.png (569x458, 320K)

Literally just multitrack drift and stop the train by making it hit the pillars.

big yikes for this primary school level understanding of statistics

Honestly this. I don't care how right people say the math is, it's absolutely fucking retarded to even fathom the thought that your chances would increase if you switched doors. It's literally a 50/50 shot at that point. There are only two outcomes. Either you pick the right door, or you pick the wrong door.

Sounds like you have the big dumb user, I'm sorry.

So you make a choice. One that you didn't choose is revealed. Then you choose between your original choice and the track that wasn't revealed to you.
You have a 50/50 chance of choosing the one person track when you make your second choice. Or is the method of choosing still random and the third track (which was revealed) still an option to choose?

you guys have no idea what you are talking about. it has been quite clearly proven to be better to switch doors and the proof is understandable by laymen. you guys must have sub 80 IQs

your odds increase because you went from a 33 percent chance to a 50 percent chance by choosing, dumbass

Please be trolling

shit anons how simple should i make it for your preschool brain to understand.
1 0 0
remove a 0
1 0
now pick at random
oh look it's a 50% chance. really took a big brain to get that one down.

This is not what your other post says

1 0 0
remove a 1
0 0
now pick at random
oh look its a 100% chance.
This whole thing only works if always a 0 gets removed. 50/50 from the start.

its because when you pick a door, that door can no longer be removed. thus when a door is removed after you picked one, it doesn't turn into a 50/50 because they didn't merely remove a 0, they removed the door that is 0 that you didn't pick. chances are you already picked a 0 door, so once the other one is removed your best bet is to switch doors.

Not him, but it's exactly what he said.
When you make your second choice, you have a 50/50 shot.

i didn't know you could be more of a brainlet that the other guy

In the original problem the host will only ever open a door with a goat behind it

How can you say what my best interest is?

It’s a paradox
While your reason does make sense it’s also the very reason why people don’t switch.
>50%??? Gotta go with my gut!

If you have a rng set up this scenario 100 times you will win more if you switch simply because of the higher probability
It’s been proven.

That’s a lot of words for someone who’s apparently illiterate. The question specifies that the wrong choice is always revealed, and even if that wasn’t the case, there’s nothing specifically stopping you from choosing the revealed answer.

Moral? Unless forced to choose a door, simply do not act, as it shows you cannot see what lies behind each door.

Logical/math? same as monty hall. always repick for extra 17.77% chance of getting the winning door.

For anyone who doesn't get it:

Two doors are losing doors and one door is the winning door.

First, you pick a door from the three. Of course, you have a 66% chance of picking a losing door.

Then, one of the doors you didn't pick will be revealed to be a losing door, and you are asked if you would like to switch doors.

From before, there is a 66% chance you picked a losing door already. that means there is a 66% chance that the other door is the winning door. thus, you should switch doors.

Attached: 1494901994545.png (544x416, 6K)

It's not a 50/50 because there was Impetus behind the choice in the 'reveal' of the second 'losing' door. In cases where you choose correctly 1/3rd of the time The reveal can be chosen as a true 50/50. However the 2/3rds times you chose wrong the door is specifically chosen 100/0 Because the other unchosen door is the 'winner' and cannot be revealed to continue the game. In these 2/3rds of cases you should Always switch

So 2/3rds of the time you should always switch and 1/3rd of the time it's a true 50/50. The +EV play is to switch

>the thing only works when you are shown a wrong answer

That is literally the point retard. The situation applies to a game show where you have three options something like a new Car, nothing, or $20. The options are hidden behind doors. So before you open the door but after you have made your choice, the host shows you one of the doors and reveals the $20 option. They offer that you can take the $20 or risk changing your original selection. Since your original choice had worse odds for you being right, you change your mind and open the other door. Statistically, you win the car.

You get on that pad and Beat Beat that shit as right as you can. Sometimes you gotta make sacrifices and some niggas gotta get 187'd but if it's all you can do to stop even more bullshit then that's the way it's gotta be. Shit's tough in the FP.

I don't get why Monty Hall is held up as a difficult thing to understand/explain, 2/3 chance to pick a goat, if you pick a goat and switch you win; therefore always switch.

I love trolley memes

Because 50% of the population is below average.

NPCs cant into probability.

>potentially fun trolley thread ruined by monty hall

Attached: 1526710724879.png (500x372, 220K)

My lever is OK.

The riddle never stated that you couldn't switch back to the one track with 5 people on it so I'd assume that it's an option

A fat man will jump off a bridge, killing himself, if you make no choice. His death will be on your hands.
Also a lady or a tiger will reveal themselves from behind the wall and maul you to death. It is possible the lady is just a lady tiger.

Sounds like you didn’t switch

I cant believe a monty hall problem is too hard for Yea Forums. no wonder those threads about crit chance are always a nightmare where over half the people are wrong.

t. won a goat

double jian get down from there, you're gonna break your legs

>take ethics class in community college
>excited to discuss all of the different trolley problems
>literally everyone but me says they wouldn't pull the lever in the basic problem because "killing is wrong I couldn't bring myself to do it"
is this some kind of normie thing?

Picking one thing makes you win, pick the other makes you lose. That's a 50/50 choice retard.

Monty Hall problem isn't exactly what one would call intuitive. If a person's never seen it before or been exposed to conditional probability in general then it makes sense they would have trouble grasping it. Really all it shows is that they've never taken a statistics class, so they're probably underage.

Yeah, "normies" aren't human.

Never underestimate Yea Forums‘s stupidity

This shit came up in Discrete Math II which I made an A in and I still don't understand it

How are you posting on Yea Forums while tied to a track?

>You're the one in the place of the one tied up person, but you still have the lever
What now?

yes, normies are instructed since childhood to never step out of line or cause attention to themselves and "letting things sort themselves out"

Philosophy classes are always full of people more interested in making themselves look intelligent or moral than people actually interested in the subject matter. Almost no one takes it out of genuine passion, they do it either because they're required to or because they treat it as a fashion statement. This is true across both community colleges and regular colleges.

isn't this just a dumb monty hall problem?

Those five cunts would switch it to me if they had the lever, fuck them I'm not dying for people who would kill me.

The more I see things like these the more I come to realize the only thing I'll ever understand about E.Y.E is that I'll never understand EYE

Attached: 1510843521939.jpg (900x1164, 337K)

when it was a random stranger chances are he was of average or below average value to humanity. I however know I have a 120 IQ and thus am one of the top contributors to humanity and worth much more than 5 random joes who wageslave jobs with their liberal arts degree or highschool diplomas and smoke weed on weekends.

The biggest lie that most people profess to believe in is "violence is not a solution"

>those threads about crit chance are always a nightmare where over half the people are wrong.
oh god dont remind me
>FE conquest thread
>theres always a retard that thinks 80%+ hit is safe and will bitch nonstop if it backfires while ignoring the fact his "strategy" involved doing dozens of such attacks

Yea Forums what would you rather have, 5 million dollars/currency equivalent, marrying your waifu/husbando or getting the sequel/dream game you always wanted?

Attached: 214324253523436.jpg (373x435, 26K)

the only option is to do nothing

Attached: phi.jpg (1914x828, 286K)

one time I pointed out that I must be in a class of saints because not once did anyone admit to ever doing anything unethical. of course I was completely ignored.

>stoners would gladly kill people because they limit their drug use to the weekend
and they say weed doesn't make people violent.

>take calculus in highschool
>excited to learn what those cool greek looking math letters are
>litterally everyone but me says they understand differentiation because "you just apply the right formula".
is this some kind of normie thing?

youtube.com/watch?v=L4hSh__9YFs

But after they reveal a wrong door, isn't the door you originally picked part of the current 50/50 too?

Im not choosing or touching shit
Can fuck off with that Im not getting sued by someones surviving family or dog or some shit

>Vos Savant suggests that the solution will be more intuitive with 1,000,000 doors rather than 3. (vos Savant 1990a) In this case, there are 999,999 doors with goats behind them and one door with a prize. After the player picks a door, the host opens 999,998 of the remaining doors. On average, in 999,999 times out of 1,000,000, the remaining door will contain the prize. Intuitively, the player should ask how likely it is that, given a million doors, he or she managed to pick the right one initially.
In case they're any other smooth brains having difficulty seeing why it is advantageous to do the switch.

my 10th grade math teacher gave us a pop quiz to derive e^x using the fundamental theorem of calculus without looking in our books. after 30 minutes he laughed at us and told us to throw our papers out.

The doors aren't randomized again. So yes, its 50/50 but that's the point.

You had a 66% chance of selecting the losing option or a 33% chance of selecting the correct option. You most likely selected the wrong door. So you switch your choice because now you are 50% likely to be right.

Stop posting.

user i think you should go to bed

only works if it's a game show in which case there is a man behind the mirror who would NEVER open the door to the track with one man

Attached: 1558834961659.jpg (640x360, 44K)

The real answer is walk away from the lever without touching it and calling 911 to inform them of the accident. If you are not working for public transit/some rail company and are unqualified to operate that lever you are not legally obligated to do anything other than call emergency services. At worst pulling ANY lever or interfering with the operation of that train in any way would make you legally responsible for any resulting deaths and you could potentially be charged with manslaughter.

Attached: 1561831384808.png (850x1200, 1.44M)

>The doors aren't randomized again
t. never understood quantum probability

Attached: Shall we continue.jpg (506x350, 74K)

thats what the image specifies ESL-kun

It's pretty easy to understand if you think of an extreme example. Imagine I spread a deck of cards on a table face down and tell you that if you pick the ace of spades then I'll give you $100. You pick a random card and your chance of being correct is 1/52. I then flip over all the cards except yours and one other and ask if you want to swap. It should be obvious that you absolutely should.

The key is that the person doing the revealing knows where the prize is and never reveals it, so it's guaranteed not to be removed from play.

>RAILS
>INTERLINKED

But have you considered the power of Chaos?

Attached: 200px-ChaosStar.jpg (200x211, 17K)

The simple minded see that inaction is morally justifiable because you didn't change the conditions of what is currently happening, even if it would generate a worse outcome. By switching the leveler, they are not actively killing someone which they see as being worse, even if its the better outcome.

Attached: 594cee58e53f8.jpg (476x247, 35K)

How would it feel to hold a lever in your hand

Yes but pretentious shitters conveniently forget this.

>math is pretentious

did you even bother to get a GED?

Dragon Age Origins and the dwarf king quest.

refusing to save people because you are afraid of legal consequences makes you a coward

>oh the the submachine gun has two firing modes, one must me semi-auto
>the other mode just fires even faster

Attached: 1504657418436.jpg (306x331, 69K)

In a vacuum its a 50/50
However its not because prior to a door being removed you had a 33% chance of picking the right door
Meanwhile the remaining door will 50% of the time always be the winning door
You are trading a 33% chance for a 50% chance

Why so I can give kikes money so I can waste years of my life being brainwashed and gaining debt for a piece of paper?

Attached: 1523217527352.png (680x649, 269K)

Is it true that I pulled the lever, yet I am not my murderer?

go to bed you retard you are trading a 33% chance for a 66% chance

How do you reach a negative when adding positive numbers?

ethics is fake and gay

Attached: 3478629845279435.jpg (800x530, 67K)

>google a Monty Hall simulator
>do it a bunch of times and kept switching
>keep losing

HELP
MATH MAJORS FUCKING LIED TO ME

Attached: Capture.png (685x495, 31K)

>they're

Attached: 1556752343063.jpg (688x688, 76K)

always switch. the chance that you picked correctly initially is 1/3, the chance that you picked incorrectly initially is 2/3.

Why does he have to be scared of legal consequences
He owes the track strangers nothing and in return would just get a chance of being financially ruined

big whoop, trackfag
still not in prison or responsible in any way for the outcome

First option. I figure a very large majority of them will have died from old age by the time the tram gets anywhere near them.

By extension of the complex Zeta function. Also by a slew of other maths, including simple analysis, parabolic functions, and other I've probably forgotten.

The point is: the pattern 1 + 2 + 3... is infinite. But if we presuppose it is finite, we always get the same answer, no matter what kind of math you use. And that answer is, bizarrely, -1/12.

I heard that fact is used in QM Renormalization, though I don't know if it's true. It's just a math joke.

Well, usually the experiment is done with goats as the losing price. The site you're on uses pigs.
You obviously have to rethink the whole thing.

bad luck trumps all

Is it a math glitch? I mean doing the pattern to a finite number number of times like 1 million clearly is a number bigger than 1million.

You dont. The reimann sum representation of the zeta function isn't valid unless s>1. to get 1+2+3+... you have to have s=-1, which is not >1.

Trolley? What's a trolley?

How do you take something represented as infinite and "presuppose" is as finite?

Secondly, does that mean that the way that they're presented in the image is unfair, as both are presented as infinite, but one of the answers is presupposed to be finite whether or not it actually is in reality?

Also, I suck at mathematics so please, if you can, explain it to me like I'm a literal retard.

This will forever remain my favorite of all trolly memes.

The way you explain it doesn't help to convince people if they're sceptical.
The way I like to state it is in the form of possible timelines.
There's two timelines in which you chose a 5 people track, and one in which you chose a 1 person track. In the first two switching would be beneficial. There's therefore a 2/3 chance of switching being beneficial.

the calculated probality of switching doors is only visible at 1000000 simualtions or so

in practical terms you still blindly pick random doors and you are subject to unforgiving RNG

Attached: 1564558887953.jpg (572x800, 105K)

multi-track drift into all three

How can you get a negative, and fractional, result when you are only adding positive integers?

Is it a good game?

You know what a train is? Same thing.

You are given two eggs, and access to a 100-story building. Both eggs are identical.
The aim is to find out the highest floor from which an egg will not break when dropped out of a window from that floor.
If an egg is dropped and does not break, it is undamaged and can be dropped again. However, once an egg is broken, that’s it for that egg.
If an egg breaks when dropped from floor n, then it would also have broken from any floor above that. If an egg survives a fall, then it will survive any fall shorter than that.
What strategy should you adopt to minimize the number egg drops it takes to find the solution and what's the minimum amount of drops you'll end up doing?

Attached: 1561645839279.png (320x320, 90K)

Maybe

>chance of 5 people dying if I fuck up
>5 people will die if I do nothing
Seems like a no brainer to me.

Whether you are morally opposed to interfering with life and death doesn't really matter. What really matters is that we live in a world built upon laws and interfering with the situation in any way would make you legally responsible. Do you really want to spend 5-15 years in prison on manslaughter charges and ruin your life because you wanted to "do the right thing" and save more people?
>refusing to save people because you are afraid of legal consequences makes you a coward
Luckily being a coward is not against the law. You should be afraid of the law that's why it exists so that idiots will keep themselves in line out of fear from punishment. What would you do if the train was not meant to go down that track and derails after you flip the lever? Then you would not only be responsible for one death but the deaths of everyone aboard that train. Pulling the lever is selfish and impulsive. You're only doing it so you can feel like you did the right thing not because you actually know you're doing the right thing.

THIS does not apply if you are an employee of the rail service that owns and maintains that railway and you are qualified to operate that lever in which case you should do whatever you can to minimize collateral damage and death/injury then report everything you did with a sound reason behind it.

Attached: 58fde6afe48cf2d55738c151215c281e.jpg (850x1590, 251K)

Attached: 1558949792510.jpg (730x544, 207K)

Keep in mind that the way the situation is set up "switching" means changing from correct to incorrect or vice versa.
The chance of getting it correct on a switch is therefore always the inverse of of getting it correct without switching.

Kek

I wouldn't call it a glitch. More of a bizarre and unintended feature. The complex extension of the Zeta function is incredibly useful, arguably one of the most important function of mathematics. -1/12 is found when using the Zeta function to compute the pattern 1 + 2 + 3... Or simply by postulating that 1 + 2 + 3... = (finite) x, and doing some simple hoops.

Or said otherwise, if 1 + 2 + 3 had a finite answer, all the edifice of mathematics seems to agree that it is -1/12.

So it can be a glitch, but the maths that give that answer are solid and useful, and internally consistent.

you don't, it's the result of the function given the edge case value and doesn't represent the actual value it represents

it's like how you divide 1 by 2 and you get 0.5, but if you divide 1 by 0 you annihilate the universe

You've got two problems. First, you'll have to do the test many, many times to see the trend. Far more times than you'd be prepared to do manually. The other problem is the random number generators used for this sort of stuff often don't actually generate random numbers. For most purposes they are fine but when you are trying to do shit like probability you'll see they often have biases in them that render them useless for such purposes.

not him but is it somewhat arbitrary what value the extension of the function is chosen to be? i mean obviously there is reasoning and intuition for it being -1/12 because it has to be a useful value in the first place, but do you essentially get to pick? like how you might pick what exactly 1/0 means depending on the situation?

it's why those 3rd grade level """"""viral"""""" math problems get popular, the average person is a fucking idiot and barely has enough intelligence to keep themselves alive

The way I got it is to actually try the problem, instead of using doors you think of a number between 1 and 3 and do the problem normally with a someone else as the guesser. This should help you understand that the only reason to not switch is if you got it right on your first guess, which is a 1 in 3 shot.

Attached: math.jpg (480x244, 19K)

drop an egg starting at the bottom and if it doesn't break move up 2 floors. if it breaks go back one floor and see if it breaks there.

I wouldn't trust the person who put me into this situation to help me choose the correct door by lowering my odds of being incorrect, so I'll stick with my own gut feeling and not change my decision.

Nobody explains it well. They just start throwing out percentages instead of detailing the psychology behind it.

Wouldn't you just start on floor 2 in that case?

1

the axiom of choice is bad

Congratulations, you gave the second least stupid answer.

>two modes
>full auto
>fuller auto

>How do you take something represented as infinite and "presuppose" is as finite?
Ramanujan had a cool "proof" in his papers. It's surprisingly easy to follow.

x = 1 + 2 + 3 + ...
=> 4x = 4 + 8 + 12 + ...
=> x - 4x = 1 - 2 + 3 - 4 + ...

It happens that the pattern 1 - 2 + 3 - 4 is equal to 1/(1+1)^2. That's a well known power series.

=> x - 4x = -3x = 1/(1+1)^2 = 1/4.
=> -3x = 1/4
=> x = -1/12

Complete and trivial bullshit.

what what is the best solution?

It's 1 I think.

Attached: braindead akko.jpg (1280x720, 160K)

you just have bad luck

Attached: hall.png (578x486, 29K)

Reword it in reverse polish notation and then it'll be a question worth answering.

divide building into two even sections, 1-50 floor and 51-100 floor. drop the egg from the middle - say, 50. if egg breaks repeat the same process from the lower section, if not repeat the same process from the upper section. you will use 6-7 eggs at most in total before finding out what floor is the answer.

>you are given 2 eggs

would you rather fuck two goats or one car

I don't care I can afford more and it's gonna be faster

It was never a 33% chance, since you know from the start that one of the choices is going to be removed. If there's only two choices, then it's 50%. In fact, it was 50/50 from the beginning to the end, which is why switching doesn't make a difference.

they're fucking eggs lol dont even need to test it out

youtube.com/watch?v=TVq2ivVpZgQ
Let Osama bin Laden's beard explain this shit to you

What
said, but starting at floor 10, and move up in increments of 10. As soon as it breaks, go 1 above the last floor it didn't break or floor 1 if it breaks on the first drop, and repeat. Even in the worst case scenario it'd be 19 drops total, compared to the maximum 51 drops it'd take in the other answer's case.

pick a number
now I declare that you win if you roll that number on a 6-sided die
are your chances 1/2 after I declared the rules because "you either roll it or you don't"?

Even if I knew by switching it. It would go to the track with 1 person I wouldnt switch it. Who am I to say that the one life is less valuable than the 5? Have you even played tales of vesparia?

>japanese stories

there is no 50/50
the question is worded in such a way as to obfuscate the real question which is "what is the probability you picked the WRONG door"

switching DOES make a difference.
originally you had only 1/3 chance of getting the right answer
after they reveal (REMOVE) one door, switching gives you a 1/2 chance, but staying remains a 1/3 chance. by switiching, you're removing the door from play, but by revealing and keeping it, you're keeping it in play, and the skewed odds

/g/ gets this wrong

Attached: 20190707004940_1.jpg (1920x2400, 650K)

if I follow PEDMAS, it's 9 isn't it? That's how I was taught.

Do whatever in the parenthesis first.
Then exponents if there are any.
Then multiplication and division, from left to right
Then addition and subtraction, from left to right

So you do

1+2 = 3

6/2(3)
3(3)
9

Please don't tell me I'm retarded because I've been doing this and I was told I was right to do this.

1 divided by 0 is 1 though ;)

>originally you had only 1/3 chance
no, it was 1/2 chance, since you know one of the choices is going to be removed

59?

I feel like there's probably a better average case solution by starting with a small interval and increasing it with each drop (ie, start by shifting one window, then 2, then 3, etc, or possibly 2 then 4 then 8), but I don't really want to do the math to prove it at 4AM. I know I've seen this problem before but I can't recall how to solve it simply.

>14 minutes
i ain't got time for dat shit

Because its false. Its under the false pretense that you are always given the chance to switch. What if I only gave the participant the chance to switch every time they correctly guessed right? Would you still favorably switch? No because you would always lose.

9

59?

but they're both still in play
if you've chosen the car, the one they remove will be 1 of 2 goats. so there will always be a goat left over.
if you've chosen a goat, the other goat is removed, so there's only a car left.
BUT, there's a 2/3 chance you've chosen a goat. so there's 2/3 chance that a goat will be removed and a goat will remain.
but, there's a 1/2 chance that there's a car remaining. this is why you switch.

Trick question, the merchant was arrested for counterfeiting and his pouch confiscated as evidence.

Wrong answer retard and I'll prove it.

>Drop at floor 10
>Egg breaks
>Now have only one egg left
>Can be any of the lower 9 floors
>No way of telling which of those floors is the right answer

Your answer is wrong.

that's why you have two eggs, you start from the bottom floor and go up by 1 after the first egg breaks
his solution isn't the most efficient one but it would certainly work in the end

I don't know. 6 or 8 or something? It's about optimizing the number of floors to skip each time given you might have to go back and do each of those floors you skipped one at a time after the egg breaks. For example, 1 floor at a time means maximum of 100 trials. 2 floors at a time means maximum of 51 trials. 3 floors at a time means a maximum of 35 trials. And so on. Make the number of floors you skip too high and the number of trials begins increasing again.

And by bottom it is the bottom floor only in this case. if it broke on floor 20 you'd start from 11, etc

that's either a bigass pouch or atomic-sized coins

You keep saying there's 3 chances, but there's not... one gets removed. It's like saying "what are the chances of rolling a 1 on a D100?" but then swapping it for a D6 right before you roll. It doesn't magically make it 1/100 chance just because you pretended there were more options at the start.

>Is it in your moral best interest to switch the tracks to the unknown path that you did not originally choose?
Well since you forced me to interact with the trolly in the first place I guess I'm forced to answer. If one path has five people and I don't know how many are in the other two paths, I could be killing more than 5 or less than 5. The answer to the question morally is to do nothing because in the end I could be saving more than 5 or killing more than 5 and I won't know until I find out.

So I'll just wait and see what my result is going to be and if I fucked up I'm just going to go "Oh well." because who cares about morals.

People take PEMDAS/PEDMAS literally and don't realize that multiplication and division have the same priority, and the solution would be different depending on which operation you did first. While the generally accepted convention is to go left to right like you say, in reality it's just an intentionally shit question that would be written better if it wasn't designed specifically to cause arguments.

but that analogy fails. two different dice doesn't compare to one set of 3 doors. try again

No his solution wouldn't work at all you idiot.

Once the egg has broken it cannot be used in the test anymore. He has reduce his possibility space to a space of NINE. If the egg breaks on floor 10, it could also break on floor 9, 8, 7... to 1. With that one egg it would be impossible to determine which of those floors is the lowest possible floor. You have to start at the bottom. Congratulations you have failed the Amazon phone screen.

Nope, it's set as -1/12 since the extension of a complete function is always the same if it fulfills some simple conditions, which Riemann's Zeta function for Re(z) > 0 does.

Whoever told you that is retarded.

Parenthesis first, right?
First you simplify the parenthesis (1+2)=(3)
Then you actually remove it by multiplying it with the 2: 2(3)=6
6/6=1

>Luckily being a coward is not against the law.
It is, at least if it falls under criminal negligence.

They actually changed that law in china where it was common that people would deliberately ignore and refuse help to others who were injured or in lethal danger to avoid liability.
fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cgvienna/eng/dbtyw/jdwt/crimelaw/t209043.htm
"A negligent crime occurs when one should foresee that one's act may cause socially dangerous consequences but fails to do so because of carelessness or, having foreseen the consequences, readily assumes he can prevent them, with the result that these consequences occur."

Shut the fuck up pseud.
It's a simple, hypothetical ethical problem, there are no unknown variables.

based lever guy

are you retarded or something
you DO start at the bottom (or rather the last tested floor segment) with your other egg
In this case the egg broke on floor 10, so you must test floors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9
egg breaks on floor 6? floor 5 is your answer
what part of that is "impossible to determine"

You're the retard here. You don't multiple the 2 afterwards because there is a previous division sign that has to be handled first.

you can go to lower floors
if it breaks at 20 you start at 11 and work up to 19

If you're still too retarded to understand the 1/3 - 1/2 chance thing, look at the bag of marbles example.
I have a bag with 1 white marble and 2 black marbles.
You pull one out at random and don't look at it.
What are the odds you have a white marble? 1 in 3.
Now, you haven't looked at it yet, but I look into the bag and remove a black marble. That marble is gone. So now there are two marbles in play - the one in your hand, and the one in the bag.
The odds of the marble in the bag being white is 1/2 - 1 in 2 marbles - the one in the bag and the one in your hand.
The odds of the marble in your hand being white is STILL 1 in 3 - because you grabbed it while there was still two in the bag.
It's the same fucking thing as the door goats. Switching is always better.
YES. You technically have a 1/2 chance of holding the white marble at this point in time. But statistically, 2/3 of the time, the 1/2 odds will not be in your favor.
Make the switch.

Yeah I'm thinking it's 59 since starting at 1 you need to do 1+1 where as you start on day 2 in the bottom

Attached: 1462018462170.jpg (958x572, 83K)

Because if the egg breaks on floor 6, it could have broken on floor 5, floor 4, floor 3, floor 2, and floor 1. There is no way to determine

Nope, put it into any calculator and you will get 9. The rule is parens, exponents, multiplication/division, addition/subtraction; solving left to right.

This might make sense mathematically but in reality you have a 50:50 chance regardless of whether you switch or not.

lol no, the odds of the marble in your hand is also 1 in 2 since you removed the 3rd one, how can it be 1 in 3 when there's only 2 marbles? this is basic math

Here, let me break it down for you since you obviously don't understand.
>Egg 1 breaks on floor 10
>Go down to floor 1 and drop second egg
>If it doesn't break there move up to floor 2 and repeat
>If the first egg doesn't break on floor 10, move up to floor 20
>If the first egg breaks on floor 20, go down to floor 11
>Drop second egg on floor 11, if it doesn't break go up to 12
>etc. etc.

I'm saying this with as much restraint as I can muster because at this point I think you're trying to wind me up
you've already TESTED those floors. you literally JUST TESTED them. read my post again

It's amazing how this problem always attracts new mathlets arguing for the wrong answer, no matter how often it's posted.

If you pick a goat and switch you always win, two of the three doors are goats. Where's the 50/50?

why does it matter if 1 person dies or 5
not only are you a murderer regardless, but there's no objective way to measure that the lives of the 5 random people were worth more than the life of the 1 random other person
for all you know that 1 guy you killed to save the 5 could have been a doctor that would go on to save 100 people

user, you completely missed the point of the trolley problem. It's not about solving the moral dilemma, it's about analyzing human rationality. The problem is not about ethics, it's about psychology.
>literally everyone but me says they wouldn't pull the lever in the basic problem because "killing is wrong I couldn't bring myself to do it"
This is EXACTLY what is fascinating here. Most people don't flip the lever. Why? What is it about the human mind that leads people to make that decision?

I'll make it easy for you:
If the lone guy is white and if at least one of the group is a nigger you should let the trolley run over the group.

I'm sure we can also squeeze in the prisoner's dilemma.

>You are given two eggs
>What strategy should you adopt to minimize the number egg drops it takes to find the solution and what's the minimum amount of drops you'll end up doing?

The minimum and the maximum is two eggs regardless of strategy because of how your question was phrased. It's impossible to figure out the solution with only one or no eggs, unless we're allowed to replace the egg drop method with something else.

imagine a bag with one white marble and two black marbles. I remove the white marble.
what are the odds of you picking a white marble?
note: in this context, a white marble is a universe where you aren't retarded

>Take Philosophy as a free course
>Philosophy teacher asks the class who would we rather be; Horse or a Fly
>I'm the only one who picks Fly
>He ask me "Why?"
>I told him because I might not be as strong or long lived as the horse, but I could fly and that all that mattered in the end.
Normies are dumb.

I thought the point was that people usually would pull the lever, but won't push the fat man. The thought experiment being rationalizing what the moral distinction is between those scenarios.

but you're proving my point. Initially the odds would be 1 in 3, but if you remove the white marble, it goes down to zero. Removing a marble changes the odds of the original choice, they don't magically stay in the past

He's asking for how many drops you'll end up doing not how many eggs you'll use

Only if you ignore the previous information and pretend there were only two doors. But if you take into account the third door that was opened, then that information changes the likelihood of the outcomes.

O X X
X O X
X X O

Consider O a car and X is a goat, and say you pick the first door. There is only one outcome where you can win the car and two outcomes where you can win by switching.

O X #
X O #
X # O

Now after selecting the door, the host removes one of the goats behind either door 2 or 3, denoted #. However this does not affect the probability of winning after switching. As you can see, there is still a 2/3 probability of winning by switching, and only 1/3 chance if you stay.

>trolley problem invented to show the flaws in utilitarianism
>everyone acts like it's a real problem that has a real practical solution to morality and ethics
>schrodingers cat invented to show the flaws in a macroscopic interpretation of quantum theory
>everyone acts like it's a real phenomena that has real practical applications to physics and probability

please stop.

>It's impossible to figure out the solution with only one or no eggs
start from floor 1 and go up one floor each time, only one egg needed

Reminder that the person who dropped the egg floor by floor will go home with a spare egg to eat while the person who did the most "efficient" mathematical method would have no egg.

Pragmatism > Theory

>You cannot kill yourself.

Attached: Z7HeRxU.png (512x512, 361K)

A pragmatic person would go to the store and buy more eggs.

wasn't Schrodinger's cat invented to demonstrate how absurd the Copenhagen interpretation was. But then everything since has only confirmed that this is indeed how quantum uncertainty works.

The person who did it the most efficient way would likely have enough time to go buy more eggs afterward.

This guy gets it. The probabilities break because Monty knows where the goats are and always deliberately picks a goat.

Okay, so it starts off as 1x2=2. Do that sixty times, and that's 2^60. If you start with 2 coins initially, then it turns into 2^59 since the first multiplication is already done.

That doesn't explain how you won't run out of eggs, unless you start from one of the lowest floors.
Technically you can start from floor 2. If the egg breaks on 2 without breaking, you can use the other egg to verify if it will break on floor 1 if you really wanted to.

Heh

Again, that makes sense mathematically but in reality the car has already been placed behind one of those doors. It’s not randomly generated after you pick the door. So switching doesn’t actually improve your chance of getting the car because it was predetermined to be behind one of the two doors.

you also eat shit

Attached: file.png (665x825, 29K)

well I was responding to his claim that it's impossible with one or no eggs. If the (single) egg breaks on floor 2, it might still break on floor 1.

great one egg to eat, think of all the floors you just had to run up and down
you would burn way more energy than one egg could provide

Flies can possibly eat shit or not, but we won't know what I eat until we observe it.

I know you're suppose to switch but you make a good point

It's only absurd on the macroscopic level, which was the point. because cats can't be alive and dead. however on the quantum scale, particles can simultaneously have different states. people misunderstand the point of schrodinger's criticism.

I refuse to humor any hypothetical scenario contrived to test my understanding of ethics or mathematics. Same reason I refused to learn the rules of chess after finding pawns can arbitrarily move diagonally when capturing. Some call me academically probationed, but I prefer academically principled.

That's why it's impossible with less than 2 eggs. Assuming it doesn't break on the lowest floor possible.

Someone needs to add the cat into this problem.

>3 rails for the train to go down
>3 boxes full of people who may be alive or dead
>1 of the boxes has one person and the others have 5 people, but you don’t know whether any of the people are dead yet or not

how is it impossible with one egg
you start from floor 1 and you go up 1 floor each time
every single eventuality is covered

If the original path is 5 people, than you have a 50/50 chance of going through the one with one people if you try, but a 100% chance to kill 5 people if you don't.

That's not a hard choice, it is actually pretty easy. If you don't act the result will stay the same, if you act and fail the result will be the same as not acting, and if you act and win, you will have won. So, just pull it. You are losing nothing.

Attached: 1525307433909.jpg (704x720, 103K)

This only works if the host can open your door to show that you had a goat. Otherwise, it's still 50/50 in the end.

I'm actually eating the fruit in your kitchen

The person controlling the lever already knows which track has one people since he could've easily peek'd that wall, so no, 0% chance on killing more one person.

It's not opening your door, it always opens another door you didn't choose which has a goat in it.

>So switching doesn’t actually improve your chance of getting the car because it was predetermined to be behind one of the two doors.
This is your own misunderstanding of what probabilities mean in this context and how previous information affects the likelihood of the outcomes.

Let my lawyer live, he is my only friend.

Maybe that's it. I don't know. It's been many years since we touched on this shit at uni. But the point was never really about actually "solving" this ethical dilemma, it was more just a demonstration.

People like you are why we teach kids to explain their answers.

Yeah, so it's 50/50 and there's little reason to choose another door unless you're superstitious or paranoid.

There‘s a photon beam going through the doors, it then gets reflected to the moon and back. We then can determine after the train has already passed the doors and ran all people over as a wave from the photon beam, whether the train was a wave or not. This retroactively collapses the wave function and actually, the train only ran over one set of people on one of the tracks. The rest come back to life.

Delayed choice double slit montey trolley problem.

It's not necessarily absurd on the macro level and it should be theoretically possible.

No, it's not. Look at my image, there are three possible choices you can make in the beginning, and out of those three, in two you must switch.

You’re not killing 5 people though - you’re letting them die. If you pull the lever you are potentially causing the deaths of 5 people who would not have died otherwise and you will likely spend the rest of your life in jail.

>You’re not killing 5 people though - you’re letting them die
Explain the distinction.

Yes but you are maximizing the number of egg drops it takes to find the solution and user's question is asking for a strategy to minimize the amount of drops without running out of eggs, not preserving the other egg.

Since you have two eggs you can start on floor 2 instead of floor 1. if the egg doesn't break immediately after the first drop from floor 2, you will always end up doing less drops than if you started from floor 1. This is technically true if you start from every floor higher than that but that increases the probability of breaking your first egg on your first drop.

The Monty Hall problem is a manufactured situation that would never exist in reality.
Outside of a game show, will you never encounter multiple blind choices that are later narrowed by an omniscient benefactor who chooses not to reveal the ideal choice.

It's a a fluke of statistics that, while theoretically interesting, has no useful application. like ur mum

>Yes but you are maximizing the number of egg drops
I am responding SOLELY to user's claim that it is impossible to arrive at a concrete solution with less than two eggs.
I fully agree with starting from floor 2, floor 10, floor whatever.

People fixate on the switching doors when the real key is the host knowing what he's taking out of play. The host never takes the car out of play. Your initial guess had a 1/3 chance of being right and a 2/3 of being wrong. If the host was taking doors out of play randomly, that'd be the end of it, but what he's doing is essentially distilling that 2/3 you had of not initially picking the right one down to a single door.

It's only 50/50 if you forgot the rules of the game between the host opening a door and asking if you want to switch.

who the fuck cares

If you don’t pull the lever you are letting events take place, but you have had no active participation. You would not be considered legally culpable. If you pull the lever you have actively influenced the result of the event. This will result in the death of an uncertain number of people. You could be found legally culpable.

The best action is to not pull the lever.

I know, but it becomes 50/50 when one of the closed doors is taken out of the equation when opened. Having one opened gives me no practical reason to switch doors. I get that the initial choice is 1/3 of them being the prize door and that switching after one is opened gives you a 1/2 chance of getting the prize door in theory, but in the end it is the exact same thing if you switch doors or not since you still have a choice of one goat door and one prize door. This door question only works in the favor of those who say to switch if the host reveals one goat door in order to make the person choosing a door rethink his decision so that he chooses the correct door, which would not be the door that he had initially chosen. If that's not taken into consideration, then it's 50/50 regardless of whether he changes his answer or not.

>I am responding SOLELY to user's claim that it is impossible to arrive at a concrete solution with less than two eggs.
It is if you're trying to minimize the amount of egg drops instead of dropping it from every floor starting from floor 1.

Murder vs. criminal negligence or possibly manslaughter.

You have a trolley on a rail. The rail splits into 3 and passe through three doorways. Behind one door, which one is not known, is one person. That person is in a box with a nuclear decaying particle. Depending on the state of the particle, that person is alive or dead. Behind two of the other doors are groups of 5 people each, and those people are in larger boxes with a similar radioactive mechanism to determine their states. A door is opened and behind it are one of the 5 people groups in their quantum box. If you do nothing, the trolley will run through this door. If you pull it, you choose another door. Also one of the 5 groups are disabled children. The single person has cancer and will die in a few months anyway. The other group of 5 are murderers and pedophiles, but you don't know which one. An angel and a demon guard two of the doors. The angel can only tell the truth and the demon will always lie. So what yes or no question can you ask them to decide which door to choose. Also you're not actually there, you're a brain in a vat and all sensory input is given through electrical stimulus.

You take that back. My mum is not a fluke of statistics.

it's not impossible if you're trying to minimize egg drops. that IS the minimum egg drops with a single egg.

You do, you ninny.

two eggs, you fucking retard. that's two more that the amount of brain cells you have.

Think of it but with 100 doors. You pick one. The host opens 98 other doors, all with goats behind them. You now have the choice of keeping your original door or switching to this one closed door, with the knowledge that the host will never reveal the car. It's much more extreme, obviously, but it's the exact same underlying principle.

It's not, because the host will never reveal the gold door.
You have 2/3 of chance to pick a goat door, and if you do, he will reveal the other goat door, and the golden door will be the other one, so you should switch in those 2 possibilities.
You should only stay if you picked the gold door at the start, and that 1/3 of chance.
It's not 50/50, the show host is giving you information because he will NEVER open the golden door.

AI YAI YAI IM YOUR LITTLE BUTTERFLY
GREEN BLACK AND BLUE MAKE THE COLOURS IN THE SKY

It's literally the prime example they use to teach conditional probability which has tons of applications.

>Two rails
One rail has a cat tied to it
The other rail has two boxes that have a cat and a vial of poison inside each one, both, or neither might be dead and you won't know unless you kill the other cat and open the box.

Reminder that the legal rule to the 'trolley problem' is not to play as when you pull the lever you become a participant to murder.

Attached: 1475011865890.png (499x338, 38K)

If anything the 5 people should be old people who are widely loved and the one person should have been a young man who is a closeted pedophile who has never acted on it.

If you twist meaning enough that might make sense in some bullshit imaginary negative number mathematics but as a pragmatic decision it's 50/50, mental gymnastics don't change that.

Practically, it is the same whether you switch the door or not, though.

Again, only if you ignore previous information. It isn't a blind guess, the door you didn't select does have a greater likelihood of the car and it is quite obvious as shown previously.
Concluding otherwise is willful ignorance of the facts. It would be like saying you have a 50/50 chance of winning the lottery, because you either win or you don't, ignoring the fact that the likelihood of your ticker winning is far lower than the likelihood of another ticket winning.

That relies on the laws being retarded ameritrash laws.

This. The law is designed to entrap people.
Even if you save lives at the cost of others the law will still demand you be punished. Never pull the lever.

I can visibly see the cat tied to the rail is alive. With full certainty of a living cat saved, I will let the boxes flatten.

If you read the shit in my image and you still have a problem understanding that it's not 50/50, you have brain cancer :)

Alright. The problem here is that you need to look at the overall picture. There are 3 choices, each with 2 different possibilties, and 2 different possibilities following. A is car, B is goat, C is goat

You choose A; B is removed and you stay. Result: you get a car
You choose A; B is removed and you swap. Result: no car
You choose A; C is removed and you stay. Result: you get a car
You choose A; C is removed and you swap. Result: no car
You choose B; C is removed and you stay. Result: no car
You choose B; C is removed and you swap. Result: you get a car
You choose C; B is removed and you stay. Result: no car
You choose C; B is removed and you swap. Result: you get a car

"There's 8 options there, and half of them are winning! It's 1/2!"
No! A has more outcomes, but it's still only 1 of 3 choices.
If you stay with A you win. If you stay with B you lose. If you stay with C you lose. 1/3 chance of winning IF you stay.
If you change with A, you lose. If you change with B you win. If you stay with C you win. 2/3 chance of winning IF you change.

If you're at the point where you can choose to change or stay, 2/3 of the time - 2/3 of the initial choices - you will win if you change.
Just because A has twice the outcomes that either B or C have individually, doesn't mean you have twice the chance of picking A to begin with.
Please understand so I can cook some food without worrying about people being wrong on the internet.

Either way you will be culpable to the families of whoever dies when you pull the lever.

In what country? America? There are other countries in the world where you wont be charged for murder for saving 5 people.

Attached: file.png (1196x964, 857K)

>Except a wrong answer was removed. Which effectively makes it 50/50. But those new odds only apply if you change, otherwise you're still under the old odds.

I still think that this doesn't logically follow and I need to see a mathematical proof of it

someone posed this to me like 20 years ago and I do not believe in it

This is why Chinese people never help their fellow bugmen when they get squished by cars.

Oh no, I understand what you guys are saying is theoretically correct, but when the host opens a door, then one of door combinations is gone, so that means you either picked a goat door or a car door initially since one of the two goat doors was opened.

How is that relevant if you didnt commit a crime?

Luckily it's an ethics problem and the law has literally nothing to do with what is moral or ethical.

So how do self driving cars solve this or similar case?

Say they either run over a jaywalking asshole with their kid, or avoid and hit a law abiding motorcyclist?

Or if they have to hit 1 of 2 cyclyst, do they hit the one who caused the dilemma but not weaing head protection, or the other with protective headgear because hes more likely to survive, but is at no fault whatsoever for the situation?

I'll kill a moeblob for free

The guard puzzle also fucks me up, I don't think I'd ever come up with the solution on my own

Definitely pull. Anime thots need to die.

He is not opening a random door, he only opens a goat door.

The only way you can do it with only two eggs, without maximizing the number of drops, is if you pick two floors that are next to each other and only one egg breaks after dropping an egg from each of those floors. You can't verify which floor the egg will survive being dropped by skipping floors

If you only use one egg and start from floor 1, you are actually maximizing the number of drops it would take to find the solution. The only exception is if the egg breaks on one of the first two floors.

Good Samaritan Law prevents that from occurring. Not to mention no jury would convict you.

good thing ethics is worthless symbol mashing and laws are enforced by extremely real violence

If it is literally your real wife then who the fuck would sacrifice their wife for 5 random people?

You cause those families grief. Their lives are worse as a result of your actions. That doesn’t weigh upon your conscience?

Where did I say a random door was opened?

Not really. Any scumbag prosecutor in the world could send you to jail for it. Almost every western legal system is designed to punish people for their actions.
>laws are not supposed to maintain ethics
Ironic isn't it?

This is still accurate at post-grad. I'm in a international law class. Fucking white liberal women.

They probably just come to a dead stop in a matter of milliseconds, shattering your neck and spine from the intertia.

Attached: 1564175058733.jpg (1920x1013, 94K)

No since all of the options cause grief. Including inaction.

yeah those 5 people are done

Depends if you lived in China or not.

Okay, so if the host opens a goat door:
You have this configuration of doors:
G G C (goat goat car)

You don't know what's behind it, the host does, and you have three doors to pick

(G) G C, he reveals the second G, you have to switch.
G (G) C, he reveals the first G, you have to switch
G G (C), he reveals any of the Gs, you have to stay

So even if you don't know what's behind your door or the other one, you should always switch, dumb fuck

The division symbol as presented is ambiguous notation.

Honestly I don't even know why we still teach this shit to kids. Just teach 'em fractions. By 6th grade, the division symbol is just a waste of healthy neurons in those kids' brains.

The answer is that Henry has armour, and a big fucking sword, and there are no witnesses out on that road, and who would ever suspect that the Bailiff of Pribyslavitz would randomly murder a riddler on the road?

we're talking about two different situations here
I only have the concrete floor solution in mind, and I"m talking about being able to find that when restricted to 1 egg
The actual, minimized 2 egg solution is a variant of the 10 floor solution posted earlier. you go in intervals, then test all of the untested floors below that.

...

I push the fat man on the track anyway.

Morality is a spook anyway.

It's an ideal example because it's abstract and simple.

If you want to gaze into crystal balls to make decisions about your life, by all means rely on probability to feel better about the outcome. Just don't expect a bail out unless you're Wall Street.

One of my favorite

Attached: 1516308186086.jpg (650x947, 263K)

But realistically, you only have one chance to pick a door, not three. So, it's just 50/50. Either you pick the goat door or you don't.

Inaction will be a higher degree of punishment than attempting to save as many people as you can. Only shitholes like america would charge a person who pulls the lever with murder.

ok, wait, why does "choose A" have four outcomes and the others don't? I think you've made a mistake here because you've just demonstrated it's 50/50 (4 of 8 scenarios are winning)

Attached: 1557668122992.gif (960x720, 1016K)

that law is the basis of civilization:
No average Joe can have any say in whether someone lives or die. Period.
If such a decision has to be made, It must be by an entity "higher" than any single one of us, and it must use objective, and apply universal rules/standards on any and all accused.

Attached: 1557629811479.png (480x361, 45K)

like tears in the rain
time to die....

So by this logic, if I am ever confused about a choice between two options I can just introduce a third pointless option and eliminate it to improve my chance of choosing the right option? Banger life hack.

Yes, you can only pick a door, and out of three possibilities, staying will only win you 1/3 of the time while switching will win you 2/3 of the time.
You picked a goat? The host opens the other goat so you should switch.
You picked the car? The host opens one of the goats so you should stay.
But you pick a goat 2/3 of the time, so 2/3 of the time you should switch.

A chicken lays two eggs on some tracks before crossing a nearby road. On the tracks is a trolly inside which a gameshow is being filmed. Assuming the trolly moves at 30 miles per hour and left the station at 3:27 pm, can the chicken tell why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

That's too many coins man.

The original question doesn't just ask for the safest "concrete" floor solution, it's asking for a strategy to minimize the number of drops to determine the highest floor you can safely drop an egg from.
Yes, we both agree you can do it with only one egg if you start on the lowest floor, but that method maximizes the amount of drops you'd need to find the solution, when user was originally asking for the opposite.

Buddha would argue that there is no one travelling and no trolley too.

Is there a trolley problem/Theseus' ship one?

thats not much better. i would much prefer if its the jaywalkalking assholes neck and spine were shattered

Fuck the Monty Hall problem, someone explain what looks sexual appealing about crudely drawn Japanese saccharine cutesy faces? It's a patronizing design you use to entertain children (big head, disproportionately detailed eyes, small nose) lazily slapped onto a significantly more detailed erotic drawing.

Not only do almost all western nations, including Americans, have laws that limit liability for damages caused while attempting to rescue people, a lot of western country literally require you to at least attempt to provide assistance in situations of mortal peril.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
Your legal understanding is simplistic and blinkered.

No, in the original problem you have 3 options right off the bat with one omniscient host which knows what door has the right choice.
It's not a practical problem.

Attached: 1547587651635.jpg (500x386, 15K)

yeah that's why I mentioned we had different situations in mind. probably my bad

Is definitely push the fat man but it looks like I’d also have time to dive for the steps.

Because if you choose A (the winner) then the host can potentially remove either of the other two doors, whereas picking a losing door only gives one option for the host to remove because he will never open the winning door.

The real question is:
Why does the trolley image ask you if you would pull the lever when the guy has already pulled it?

so juvenile that it hurts

Attached: 1516303180465.jpg (506x267, 44K)

did you even read my post?
the 4 outcomes from A do not have the same weighting as B and C.
Each A outcome has 1/4 of 1/3rd a chance of happening, while each outcome for B and C has 1/2 of 1/3rd a chance.

I can be wrong for as long as it takes you to starve to death, user.
That will not change the fact that you are hungry.

>you have 3 choices to solve your hunger, but you don't know which one will work:
>correct people on the internet
>fap
>cook food

>you have chosen to correct people on the internet
>it is revealed by one wise user that one of the choices, fapping, will not sate your hunger
>do you switch choices or stay the course?

A has 4 outcomes because Monty has two goats to choose from. You are correct that switching gives you a 50% chance of success. The problem is that you're saying 50/50 when the reality is that it's 50/33

Literally nothing, but virgins get conditioned to be sexually attracted to it through years and years of constant exposure to little cartoon girls getting into sexually provocative situations.

Attached: 1516308251838.jpg (696x960, 100K)

>just asking me to picture a life without anxiety like that
Have I wronged you in some way?

Attached: nick.jpg (512x512, 26K)

Don’t pull. Those five guys will understand.

It depends on the God in question.

suffering is a survival mechanism

He sounds based.
I'd have failed it, too, and I still would today.

That's a pretty good one.

maybe god killed himself, the problem doesn't say you can't.

web.archive.org/web/20140413131827/http://www.decisionsciences.org/DecisionLine/Vol30/30_1/vazs30_1.pdf

This is an article from 1999 where an acclaimed author and mathematician explains how he used a computer simulation program to prove that your chances improve by switching a door.

That post saying you couldn't do it with one egg was wrong, but it was under the assumption that you were trying to minimize the # of drops and not eggs used, instead of doing the maximum number of drops with only one egg.

Mara pls go

always switch
t. 185 IQ Mensa member

Don’t pull. If you don’t pull you kill 5. If everyone pulls you kill 4, but if even one of those people doesn’t pull then more than 5 people would die. Why put that faith in 3 strangers?

I scoured this thread and didn't see multi track drifitng. I'm appalled at the lack of decorum around here these days.

Attached: multi-track-drifting-15209810.png (500x633, 155K)

pull the lever only half way and derail the trolley, killing everyone onboard
then find some burning debris and set all the people tied to the track on fire

>in your moral best interest

My moral best interest is not playing this game.

If you ever find yourself in this situation just remember the age old adage:

“Switchers and bitches”

I came here to see this because I didn't have it on my hard drive.

God finds enjoyment in making sentient beings so he can put them through a world of suffering so only the best genuine sycophants spend eternity in his house to praise him endlessly after they die. It's not that complicated.

Attached: 1547587590226.jpg (640x391, 31K)

I just want to say that I love participating in these dumb ass off topic threads with you Yea Forums. Highlight of my day.

Proof:
Let there be n doors, n an integer larger than 1, with one door containing the prize.
Let x be your chances of picking the prize with the original pick.
We can see that x=1/n since there are n doors.
The host then opens all but 2 doors, with one guaranteed to contain the prize.
If you do not switch, your chance of the door you picked having the prize is still x.
However, if you switch to the other door, your chance now becomes 1/2.
Therefore, it is in your best interest to switch every time n>=3.
QED

hahahaha retard

A similar thing is found in Castaneda's books. The protagonist asks his teacher, sorcerer Don Juan, what will he do if someone shoots him with a sniper rifle, how his magic will help him. Don Juan answers that he will just never get himself in a situation where someone is shooting at him with a sniper rifle.

Definitely switch.

>QED
lmao at the Yea Forums mathematical proofs

>However, if you switch to the other door, your chance now becomes 1/2.
While you're correct you didn't really rigorously prove this, you just stated it

you were doing so well until that last sentence, the you just stopped being subtle

In fact, the trolley never gets to the man on the tracks. In any one instant of time, the trolley is neither moving to where it is, nor to where it is not. It cannot move to where it is not, because no time elapses for it to move there; it cannot move to where it is, because it is already there. In other words, at every instant of time there is no motion occurring. If everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible.

The division symbol would work if we all universally agreed that it means everything before the symbol will be divided by everything after the symbol, implied parenthesis if you will.

>"conductor sir, I found spare brakes!"
>"If we don't have brakes now it's not a replacement part moron, now throw it out and get back to work"

How would I even know there's another guy on the 2nd track. He'll probably be asleep by then since nothing is happening

exponential, meaning starting at 2 only takes one step out so 59 but they already guessed before me

I'm so fucking happy that we have Good Samaritan law where I live.

Does everyone know how many people there are, where they are situated and that it ends after blue guy ?
If the answer to all of that is yes, then I maybe consider pulling.

Attached: thonkeng.jpg (800x800, 40K)

it's shitty places like where you live that got seinfeld arrested

could king crimson use it's time skip to aviod the trolley problem

Attached: latest[1].png (384x483, 270K)

Haha, yeah! Just excited I get to provide a math proof on Yea Forums!

Thank you for pointing that out.
Should I have said something like:

However, if you switch to the other door, your chance now becomes 1/2 since there are now 2 doors, and we know that the prize is in one of the two remaining doors.

Do I need more than that?

Attached: trolley.jpg (1344x2218, 432K)

>universally agreeing
just use fractions, anyone past year 6 uses them because they're the correct way of doing operations.
Imagine some scientist using this retarded notation on a paper

Attached: file.png (564x519, 19K)

>hurr you have 50/50 odds of winning the lottery you either win it or you don't

Pop quiz, hotshot: the track went out and you got 1000 miles to go to kill man. What do you do? What do you do?
youtube.com/watch?v=tbNlMtqrYS0

Attached: speed-dennis-hopper.jpg (1280x544, 87K)

this is a pretty good explanation of what's going on here.
there are two choices, but the odds behind each one aren't 50%

Programming languages have this shit explicitly specified (probably not in a uniform way but you still have to state the exact rules of applying operators)

6/2(1+2)
First we do the things in parenthesis and get
6/2(3)
That is identical to
6/2*3
So we do multiplication and division, left to right
3*3
9

The answer is 9

Have you ever imagined creating your own world completely free of any conflict and striving? How boring is that? Why even bother?

Boredom is form of suffering brainlet.

The people who whine about perfect worlds being boring are also people who have no record of living in one.

>Good Samaritan law
>shitty place
Whatever you say, chinaman. Don't you have a limit on your internet access time?

can I just send it down the revealed track to guarantee 5 kills?

a world without suffering is simply one without organisms

My luck buff means i picked correctly the first time

Biggest faggot response ever. Hate when you ask some retard a hypothetical question and they say “I’d never get into that situation”. They always think they’re being so smart even though it’s the most brainlet answer ever.

they should become gigabrains by hitting people that ask them stupid questions with rocks

Sounds pretty nice.

The trolley is heading towards the track where your mentor is bound. If you do not pull the level you will have killed him, but you will not be his murderer. However, if you pull the lever the trolley will be diverted to the other track and if those people are run over their legs will not be OK.

Attached: divine problem.jpg (1544x1120, 239K)

mars looks like a shithole to me

easy just stop making waves

0*1=0
Therefore 1:0=\=1

but I am my mentor, am I allowed to kill myself?

Would you rather bang a very recently dead female or a very close to death old man?

Can you get AIDS from a corpse

kek

You've been to Mars?

He can only erase the consequence

The former. This doesn't seem like a very difficult question. I'm not into corpses but I'm into old men even less.

Interlinked

Depends how long after they're dead. HIV dies pretty rapidly when it doesn't have anything to live off of.

i go there every weekend

I was just makin a seinfeld reference bro chill

So a machine civilization would not have a problem of suffering, right?

if it didn't it wouldn't persist

I have 1 candy to share!
Wow, no one wants the candy! Whata bummer!
Looks like I'll keep my candy!

You only had two choices from the start though. We can think of the open door as imaginary. It Will Always Be Removed, therefore it doesn’t matter if you switch

If your odds are retroactively fixed then they’re 50%, since you only really had two choices.

switching will not change the difference you are making a choice between two doors after the middle one is revealed

y'all egg niggas retarded, eggs break from like a foot up. the answer is always floor 0.

Why are you talking to yourself, shizo?

And?

How so? You're probably mixing up suffering and pain, and I don't see how simulating pain is necessary to build decision-making mechanisms anyway.

building a device to enable an egg to remain intact after being dropped from the roof of a building contest.jpeg

maybe the building is on the moon retard

oh my god you're absolutely right
why didn't I see this earlier

Attached: file.png (1200x958, 776K)

Wouldn't that just kill the trolley driver/passengers by exhaustion/dehydration?

physical pain is simply a source of suffering among many (there are humans with defective genes that render them unable to feel this pain and it results in them doing obviously beneficial shit like horribly burning themselves and gouging out their eyes during childhood), and your cognitive impairments are of no interest to me

3 doors 2 always wrong 1 choice so elimate 1 door as its revealed
2 doors
switch or not?
50/50

Attached: dwwww.png (719x627, 17K)

Correct. Remove any programs capable of experiencing suffering and it shall be no more.

So deep

What a fucking retard.

that's just the original one with higher stakes

Maybe not but your birth defects certainly were.

>The odds of the marble in your hand being white is STILL
how is that so when one marble is in the bag and one marble is in ur hand
the other marble is garunteed to be black so it doesnt matter
atleast one of the marbles in the bag and in ur hand is white so its 50/50

I can't kill a man so dedicated to his job, I just can't.

Quickly pull the levers back and forth repeatedly, in an effort to derail the train for maximum casualties.

Imagine minesweeper instead
At the start there's a full board with one mine in it, and you have to place your flag on a tile of your choice
Then, all but one of the tiles you didn't choose is revealed to be empty
Do you switch your flag?
Obviously the answer is yes, and obviously you have a much higher than 50% chance of being correct if you do

retarded logic increasing the available choices but not the players choice amount and trying to say its the same
its 3 doors 1 choice and 1 door will always be revealed to be a wrong choice

If I push the fat man, he'll end up further forward on the tracks than me and I'll die before seeing the fruits of my murder.
Choice is an illusion anyways.

No, dude, the video games fat man is supposed to video games die from the fall. The drawing video games isn't to scale.

Syntax error: expected a binary operator, got token "("

You are assuming a "wrong" answer has been removed.

This is:
[code](/ 6 (* 2 (+ 1 2)))[/code]
therefore:
1

The three doors is the minimum possible case, but it's the exact same mathematics scaled down
Here it is again more explicitly

Attached: doors.png (800x1086, 73K)

>he doesnt appreciate trolley threads

The stupidest part of this is that 1+1+1+1.. = -1/2 so youre killing less people with the first one as well.

If its one female and five guys, i will switch the track to five guys because morally as men we should protect and save women at all cost no exceptions

I appreciate video games deep sea threads. This isn't a video games deep sea thread. We're almost video games at bump limit, defying all video games reason. Fuck you.

It's a fucking egg
It'll break on literally any floor

>black queen thead with good discussion on how to get a cute black gf gets instantly deleted
>this thread survives to limit

Fuck mods honestly

ive an idea. This should be a circle. One side mentor one side commander. If you pull or not they both die and trolley gets stuck in the circle. It won't make any sense.

Trolley Yea Forums culture >>>> disgusting niggers
Based mods

>disgusting n word

Yea right

Attached: EDA4E965-DF6A-4F62-9512-F76EBF81DC89.png (596x1079, 1.01M)

Is there a way I can get them all?

I don't trust this picture
I guess I am paranoid now

because the "wrong" answer has been removed
>one pathway, which you did not choose,is revealed to you to have 5 people tied to it

Attached: 12d.png (889x329, 107K)

Boggles my fucking mind that people find that pretty.

>two wrongs
>one correct
>I choose a door
>one door is revealed. it is not the door I chose. It is also a wrong
At this point, the chances of me being correct are 50/50 even if i do not switch. There is now one correct choice and one wrong choice, and i have not switched. it's 50/50. Fuck you.

>9gag watermark
get out

1. I didnt murder anyone in the first trolley problem
2. I wouldnt murder anyone in this problem either and the jury would be killed

I disband the Government under the guise of "taxation is theft". No taxation = no rails = no one dying. You can thank me anytime.

Fuck you autistic loser

>beautiful face
>sexy body
>perfect skin
>cute hair and outfit

Honestly what do you find unappealing?

That's mathematically incorrect but practically correct.

You arent murdering if you attempt to save as many as possible.
Meanwhile if you refuse to help, you are held responsible.
The only correct option is pulling the lever and anyone who thinks its murder is a retard

What if the guy who opened the door also literally tells you that the other door has twice the chance to be correct than yours had?

Practically correct is the only thing that matters. I live in the real world, not some imaginary math land.

pull the lever then whoever is still alive go kick their heads in

Attached: 1564532485422.gif (659x609, 1.64M)

Nope, you chose out of 3 so your odds of getting it right are 1/3
The effect of opening the wrong door(s) is like lumping all your unpicked choices into one
You can either have the door you picked (1/3) or all the doors you didn't pick (2/3)

UHHH ALL BLACK PEOPLE (OR AS I CALL THEM, NIGGERS) NEED TO GET OFF MY BOARD. Yea Forums IS A WHITE BOARD AND IF YOU DONT LEAVE I WILL PERSONALLY RE-ENSLAVE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU COONS.

skin color
eye color

>practically correct
What the fuck does that even mean? Setting up this exact scenario in real life with real cars and real goats where you really can win one of them doesn't change anything. You have a 2/3 chance of winning if you switch no matter if it's theoretical or 'practical'.

I am not responsible for their deaths, the only one responsible is the abstract figure that tied them to the tracks. By taking action I would become responsible for the death of one man making me a murderer.

It will you dumb fuck, what do you not understand?
The chance that you picked the right one the first time is very low, he reveals the other goat so if you switch your literal, not "mathematical", literal chances increase to 2/3 of the time.
You can do the test at home any way you want with your friends, you will see that it actually works.

>not learning your lesson the first time
let the bastards die

Attached: guts.gif (498x372, 2.74M)

i usually feed them to random girls i find in my forrest out back

Dumb fucking retard, what are the chances that you INITIALLY picked the right door out of three. It is still the ORIGINAL choice, it did not change, what do you not understand?
You are still actually picking out of three because you originally picked out of three, so you had a 2/3 chance of originally picking a goat.
This is about what you picked ORIGINALLY.

If he is not taking into account the door he just eliminated, then he is literally just telling me which door is the correct answer, thus completely defeating the purpose of the dilemma.

Wrong. One of three doors has been eliminated. There are now only two doors. The probability cannot be split into thirds. The chances are now 50/50. When you have two choices, it cannot be anything else.

>then he is literally just telling me which door is the correct answer
No, he just says that, but isn't lying. Your door still has the chance to be correct half as often as the other door, since he didn't tell you it's wrong.

59
The only thing that changes is its one stage ahead, the sequence itself has not changed.

youtube.com/watch?v=tvODuUMLLgM

heres the problem, explained and illustrated a hundred times to prove the science for anyone that doesn't get it

i know probability can be very confusing and counter intuitive like that whole flip 2 coins thing that gets posted on Yea Forums but it still makes sense

Only for himself.
He could make it so that the trolley goes through him essentially.

One of the doors being eliminated doesn't change the probability of the choice you already made.
You picked a door out of three, so you had a one third chance of being right. This is independent of anything that happens later.
After that choice, the host reveals one of his two doors has a goat behind, eliminating that door. The total probability of the car being behind his set of doors is STILL 2/3 because he still has two doors and you only have one.
Therefore, his remaining door must have a 2/3 probability of having a car behind it.
It's exactly the same as if he didn't open his goat door, but said you can have both his doors and if the car is in EITHER ONE, you win.

>two options. one wrong. one correct.
>choses randomly, there is a 50/50 chance of success
>guy says that the option i didnt' choose has twice the chance of success as the one i chose.
>No, he just says that, but isn't lying
So...he IS telling me which option is correct. Got it.

No, because the train is too slow compared to the speed of quantum travel, meaning it is not a may, but a will.

Attached: file.png (638x387, 165K)

it literally does tho

How about this
>3 options, 2 wrong 1 correct
>you pick one door
>host says "hol' up! wanna switch that one door for BOTH other doors?"
>if you do, you win if either of other two doors win
That's what it basically is. The host is *giving* you information that makes this an unbalanced choice, since they will never pick the correct door to open.

it literally, objectively, physically does

this is one of the dumbest posts I have ever seen

It literally, objectively, physically DOES NOT.
If you switch, you'll win 2/3 of the time. If you don't switch, you'll win 1/3 of the time.
This is because your initial choice was 1/3 which is unaffected by whatever happens later.
The door opening/switching rigmarole is exactly the same as giving you a new choice
>the door you picked initially (1/3)
>both the doors you didn't pick initially (2/3)

Now you guys are making it sound like I get to open two doors after he reveals one of the wrong doors. Is that how this dilemma works? because I was under the assumption that only one door could ultimately be chosen.

But that can't be right because if i get to choose BOTH other doors and if the car is behind either of them i win, then i have a 100% chance of winning, not 2/3.

Another thought. This is how my mind works: When offered a number of choices, with only one correct and all others wrong and a third party steadily revealing wrong options, the chances of success steadily increase as options are eliminated. When an option is eliminated, the old dilemma ceases to be, and is replaced with a new dilemma with only the remaining options. This new dilemma has less options and thus each option has a higher chance of success regardless of whether or not you switch.

So, assuming that options that are both wrong AND not the one you chose are eliminated, there is no reason to ever switch because each elimination changes the state of the dilemma, and thus the odds of success.