HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
May 4, 2007 Steve Dayton, one of the contributors to this website, posed a problem as a test of the intelligence of Edward Abraham, another contributor. The problem might have been stated thus: There are two O's and one X written on separate folded slips of paper. A testee is supposed to guess which slip has the X. The tester asks the testee to select a slip, leaving it folded, and then reveals to the testee another slip, which bears an O. The testee is now allowed to keep his original selection or to change it. What should the testee do to optimize his chances of finding the X? Instead of using O and X as the items to be selected, however, Dayton referred to a link that used 'goats' and 'a car', wording it to make it sound as if the testee was to find the most valuable prize. Abraham, through indifference or inaptitude, failed to produce the correct answer. No problem. No big thing. The only thing that was somewhat lame was his idea that the car might not be considered by some people, maybe those who live in the Andes, to be more valuable than the goat. As an aside, let me interject the comment that I just crossed the Andes six weeks ago on a bus, and though I saw many people in cars, I saw no one with a goat. Most of these drivers looked as if they would not exchange their cars for goats if given the opportunity. Then Carol Levy, another contributor to the website, chimed in to the effect that the relative value of goats and cars is subjective. I don't want to continue that debate, so let me paraphrase the puzzle: Suppose a man is asked to state his name three times. But he states three different names. One time he is telling the truth. The other two times he is blatantly lying and distorting. For example let us suppose that the first time, he says his name is Ron Lewis. The second time, he says his name is Zappa U. Frankly. And the third time, he says his name is Tom Pain. One name is correct. The other two are stupid lies. The tester asks the testee to guess the liar's true name, but not to say anything just yet. The testee makes his silent choice. Then the tester reveals to the testee, from the remaining two names, one of the entirely fraudulent names that the inveterate liar has provided. The tester then asks the testee if he will keep the first name that he has chosen silently, or switch to the remaining name. What should the testee do to optimize his chances of guessing the liar's true name? Since the tester has already belied one of the false names provided by the liar, it follows that if the testee has chosen a false name, he will get the true name if he switches, and if he has chosen the true name, he will get a false name if he switches. But the odds are 2 to 1 that he has chosen the false name in the first place, so he has a better chance of getting the stupid liar's true name if he switches. Of course, this is only an example. We know that anyone who identifies himself with more than one name is an arrant liar. Only one name can be true. In actuality, what we don't know is whether this chronic liar has stated his true name even once. He may have told glaring lies all three times. But for the sake of the puzzle, let us assume that the liar identified himself correctly once. ------------ About the author Thomas Keyes: I have written two books: A SOJOURN IN ASIA (non-fiction) and A TALE OF UNG (fiction), neither published so far. I have studied languages for years and traveled extensively on five continents. Email: udikeyes@yahoo.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
