jfalk
jfalk
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 29
Joined: Sep 2, 2010
January 28th, 2011 at 6:42:33 AM permalink
You have committed a hanging offense in a small, but highly logical, town. You are convicted and sentenced on Friday. The Judge pronounces the date of your execution: "You will be hanged one day next week: Monday through Friday. In order to make you suffer a bit more, I guarantee you will not be able to deduce the day of your execution the day before." "Great," you respond, "then I'm free. I can't be executed on Friday, because then I would know it on Thursday. But that means I can't be executed on Thursday, because on Wednesday I'd know it would have to be Thursday since it can't be Friday. But if it can't be Thursday, it can't be Wednesday, and if it can't be Wednesday it can't be Tuesday. But that means it can't be Monday either. That exhausts the possibilities, so you cannot execute me next week."

What, if anything, is wrong with this reasoning?
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
January 28th, 2011 at 6:45:28 AM permalink
Quote: jfalk

You have committed a hanging offense in a small, but highly logical, town. You are convicted and sentenced on Friday. The Judge pronounces the date of your execution: "You will be hanged one day next week: Monday through Friday. In order to make you suffer a bit more, I guarantee you will not be able to deduce the day of your execution the day before." "Great," you respond, "then I'm free." I can't be executed on Friday, because then I would know it on Thursday. But that means I can't be executed on Thursday, because on Wednesday I'd know it would have to be Thursday since it can't be Friday. But if it can't be Thursday, it can't be Wednesday, and if it can't be Wednesday it can't be Tuesday. But that means it can't be Monday either. That exhausts the possibilities, so you cannot execute me next week."

What, if anything, is wrong with this reasoning?



Hanging is no longer a permissible means of execution?
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Mosca
Mosca
  • Threads: 191
  • Posts: 4140
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
January 28th, 2011 at 6:57:24 AM permalink
You're gonna get hanged on Monday.
A falling knife has no handle.
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
  • Threads: 207
  • Posts: 10992
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
January 28th, 2011 at 7:37:26 AM permalink
Quote: Mosca

You're gonna get hanged on Monday.

.... And you know it today - THREE days beforehand.

The probolem is, there is nothing prolonged about the suffering.
I invented a few casino games. Info: http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ ————————————————————————————————————— Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
dwheatley
dwheatley
  • Threads: 25
  • Posts: 1246
Joined: Nov 16, 2009
January 28th, 2011 at 7:38:19 AM permalink
Or Tuesday. Either way, you can't know when you will get executed early in the week, so you will certainly be surprised (and thus cannot deduce the exact day). There's a PG version of this question using a pop quiz.
Wisdom is the quality that keeps you out of situations where you would otherwise need it
gog
gog
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 105
Joined: Jan 7, 2011
January 28th, 2011 at 7:51:34 AM permalink
on thursday you can't tell if you're being hanged friday, or 11:59pm same day
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
  • Threads: 326
  • Posts: 9557
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
January 28th, 2011 at 8:05:32 AM permalink
I'm thinking Friday is the only day it can't be.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!”   She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
  • Threads: 207
  • Posts: 10992
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
January 28th, 2011 at 8:07:57 AM permalink
Quote: jfalk

I guarantee you will not be able to deduce the day of your execution the day before.


I'm changing my answer.


You'll be hanged Thursday afternoon.

The problem does NOT say that you WILL figure it out the day before, just that the day before, you still won't know.

Therefore, on Thursday, it could still be that day or the next day, but the longer the day goes on, the higher the likelihood that you'll figure it's gonna be Friday.
I invented a few casino games. Info: http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ ————————————————————————————————————— Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
jfalk
jfalk
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 29
Joined: Sep 2, 2010
January 28th, 2011 at 8:47:10 AM permalink
OK then. If you're so sure you'll be hanged Thursday afternoon, then you've managed to deduce it on the Friday before! So it's no surprise.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
January 28th, 2011 at 10:39:10 AM permalink
Quote: jfalk

In order to make you suffer a bit more, I guarantee you will not be able to deduce the day of your execution the day before." "Great," you respond, "then I'm free. I can't be executed on Friday, because then I would know it on Thursday. But that means I can't be executed on Thursday, because on Wednesday I'd know it would have to be Thursday since it can't be Friday. But if it can't be Thursday, it can't be Wednesday, and if it can't be Wednesday it can't be Tuesday. But that means it can't be Monday either. That exhausts the possibilities, so you cannot execute me next week."

What, if anything, is wrong with this reasoning?



It assumes the Judge is correct. That's not necessarily true, especially if his intent is to cause suffering. As a result, it's entirely possible for the you to be hung on Friday. On Friday, you can exult in the knowledge that the Judge was wrong about your powerful deductive abilities ... as the hangman slips the noose over your head.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
jfalk
jfalk
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 29
Joined: Sep 2, 2010
January 28th, 2011 at 10:53:10 AM permalink
The Judge is cruel, but fair. If the hanging is expected, he will let you go.
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
January 28th, 2011 at 10:55:47 AM permalink
The judge's "guarantee" is meaningless unless if you do figure out when you will be hanged tomorrow, you can tell that to the judge and he will have to say, "Oh darn, you figured it out, I guess I have to let you go free." Otherwise, the judge might just be diddling you so you can spend next week furiously thinking about whether you will or will not be hanged.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
January 28th, 2011 at 12:40:02 PM permalink
What's with the subtle psychological torture? I faced worse than that from bullies every day in school.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
  • Threads: 326
  • Posts: 9557
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
January 28th, 2011 at 12:45:18 PM permalink
Indisputably if you survive all day Thursday, you could complain to the Judge that you know it will be Friday.

But there is something manifestly wrong with the one day at a time reasoning, as for example it could be tuesday you will be hanged, and monday you wouldnt know that, even though it seems you could make a logical sequence working back from Friday, but it is some kind of false logic.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!”   She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
January 28th, 2011 at 12:58:54 PM permalink
Since you already figured out you can't be hung on Monday, that means ... that you actually CAN. Or Tuesday ...
Any day of the week is fair game, except for Friday (if you are still alive Thursday night, then you'll have figured it out).
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
January 28th, 2011 at 1:10:34 PM permalink
If you assume the Judge's statements are true (logically, that is), then the only logical conclusion one can reach from them is:

IF you are alive at the end of Thursday, THEN you can deduce you will be executed on Friday, because it's Friday. However, if it is still Thursday, you cannot correctly deduce that you will be hanged on Friday, since you could still be hanged today. Therefore, the Judge's second statement "I guarantee you will not be able to deduce the day of your execution the day before" is always true, and it is only via improper interpretation and logic that you reached the conclusion you did. You can be hanged on Friday because by the time Friday rolls around and you know you're gonna die, Thursday is over. Therefore, even if you are hanged on Friday, you did not deduce it "the day before", on Thursday.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
jfalk
jfalk
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 29
Joined: Sep 2, 2010
January 28th, 2011 at 1:41:03 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

it is only via improper interpretation and logic that you reached the conclusion you did.



What "improper interpretation and logic" do you have in mind? you say

Quote: MathExtremist

However, if it is still Thursday, you cannot correctly deduce that you will be hanged on Friday, since you could still be hanged today.



My question is: how? I know that I can't be executed on Friday. It's impossible under the stated logical rules. Do you agree? But then if that's true, how can you say that I could be hanged on Thursday if I got to Thursday? Wednesday night wouldn't I have have to know it had to be Thursday since Friday is impossible?

For those hung up on the hours and the continuity of time (if indeed it is continuous), let's say that every execution is announced at 11 am and carried out at noon, so we won't have any problems with what happens as we approach midnight.
kenarman
kenarman
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 966
Joined: Nov 22, 2009
January 28th, 2011 at 2:30:58 PM permalink
You didn't deduce the date the day before (The information states the conversation occurs the Friday before your execution week) therefore whatever you said on that Friday doesn't apply since it isn't the day before. Your rules don't state if you get to make more than one statement. Presumably you could not get more than one statement as you would still be off the hook then since you could simply state on each day that it will be the next day.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
Doc
Doc
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 7287
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
January 28th, 2011 at 2:41:47 PM permalink
Quote: jfalk

... For those hung up on the hours and the continuity of time (if indeed it is continuous), let's say that every execution is announced at 11 am and carried out at noon, so we won't have any problems with what happens as we approach midnight.


In that last statement, you made a material change in the problem. Under those conditions, I don't think ME's specific proof holds.

With that revised problem, I think that you can, indeed, deduce the execution is scheduled for Friday as of 11:01 A.M. on Thursday (assuming the execution is not announced for Thursday.) However, I don't think that you have basis to rule out either Thursday or Friday prior to that time. Both are still possible until that moment. Anticipating that you will be able to rule out Thursday (and deduce Friday) when 11:01 Thursday arrives does not mean that you can rule out Thursday any earlier, and certainly not way back on Wednesday.

The usual simple proof that there is an error in the logic is that once you conclude that you cannot be executed on any day, then the executioner shows up one day completely to your surprise -- you didn't see that coming a day ahead of time!
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
January 28th, 2011 at 2:46:25 PM permalink
Quote: jfalk

My question is: how? I know that I can't be executed on Friday. It's impossible under the stated logical rules. Do you agree? But then if that's true, how can you say that I could be hanged on Thursday if I got to Thursday? Wednesday night wouldn't I have have to know it had to be Thursday since Friday is impossible?



Of course you can be executed on Friday. If it's Thursday, you don't know whether you're going to die today or tomorrow, so you can only deduce the following truth: "If I make it until Friday, I'll die on Friday". That follows from the first proposition (you'll die some day this week) and is unrelated to the second. It is impossible for you to deduce the day of your death "a day before" under any event.

Quote:

For those hung up on the hours and the continuity of time (if indeed it is continuous), let's say that every execution is announced at 11 am and carried out at noon, so we won't have any problems with what happens as we approach midnight.



Okay then: it's Thursday at 11am. The judge announces you're going to be executed in one hour. Did you deduce that on Wednesday? No, of course you didn't - your logic said you couldn't be hanged at all. The Judge's statements are both correct, so your logic is flawed.

Here's an analogy that might help:

I tell you (a) I'm going to count, starting at 0 and going up to a number between 1 and 5, and (b) you cannot deduce where I will stop. (The more accurate phrasing would be "you cannot deduce that the next number is the last based on the previous number", but this form is even stronger.) I also assert that both (a) and (b) are true statements, to eliminate any question of deliberate falsehood.

Suppose I've just said "four". Will I say "five"? I say you have no logical basis for deducing either way from the rules given, just as in the original scenario.

If there is a flaw in the analogy itself, what is it?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28576
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
January 28th, 2011 at 3:19:59 PM permalink
Some of us have been hung all our lives..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
January 28th, 2011 at 3:24:05 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Some of us have been hung all our lives..


I'd like to see you try to get out of your sentence by telling the Judge that.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
jfalk
jfalk
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 29
Joined: Sep 2, 2010
January 28th, 2011 at 3:27:09 PM permalink
Mathextremist -- it's not an analogy -- it's the same problem. I say once you say four, you can't say 5 without violating predictibility. Thus, once you get to 4 you must stop.

Suppose the judge can only say "Today you live" or "Today you die.". On Thursday he said "Today you live.". We now havve two startemts from the judge. 1) ONe day he will say you will die. 2Y The only day left is Friday. What's wrong with tthe deduction: Tomorrow the judge will say LYou will dieL. Doesn't that set up a contradiction?
Doc
Doc
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 7287
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
January 28th, 2011 at 4:37:04 PM permalink
Quote: jfalk

Mathextremist -- it's not an analogy -- it's the same problem. I say once you say four, you can't say 5 without violating predictibility. Thus, once you get to 4 you must stop....


Well, did you predict "5", or did you already predict another number, or did you say he can't stop on any number? Unless you got it right, he must not have violated predictability.

I agree that if the judge gets to the point of saying on Thursday, "Today you live," then, and only then, can you decide it will be Friday. But you cannot rule out Thursday being the day to die until he says that very day, "Today you live." If on Wednesday you were to decide that Thursday definitely has to be the day, then you are mistaken -- at that point it could still be planned for Friday.

Unless you make the statement each and every day, "Tomorrow is the day for the execution," you can't be sure of getting it right, and I would consider that to be outside the rules, because you wouldn't really have deduced the answer at all.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
January 28th, 2011 at 9:25:13 PM permalink
Quote: jfalk

Mathextremist -- it's not an analogy -- it's the same problem. I say once you say four, you can't say 5 without violating predictibility. Thus, once you get to 4 you must stop.



Perfect, if it's the same problem, let's use it instead. It's simpler. Remember the two propositions were:
1) I'm going to count from 0 up to a number between 1 and 5, and
2) You cannot deduce when I will stop.

If you agree that's the same problem, let's make it even simpler:
1) I'm either going to say "1 2" or just "1"
2) You cannot deduce which I will say.

Presumably you agree this reduction is also equivalent. If so, I'm guaranteed to say "1". Do you believe you can tell whether I'm going to say "2" after I've said "1"? If so, how?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1491
  • Posts: 26435
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
January 28th, 2011 at 9:44:38 PM permalink
Speaking for myself only -- I give up.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
Mosca
Mosca
  • Threads: 191
  • Posts: 4140
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
January 29th, 2011 at 5:09:40 AM permalink
Quote: weaselman

Since you already figured out you can't be hung on Monday, that means ... that you actually CAN. Or Tuesday ...
Any day of the week is fair game, except for Friday (if you are still alive Thursday night, then you'll have figured it out).



That's my answer, why I said you'll be hung on Monday. Once you're certain, it's over.
A falling knife has no handle.
jfalk
jfalk
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 29
Joined: Sep 2, 2010
January 29th, 2011 at 12:28:32 PM permalink
I my have spoken slightly too hastily when I said they were the same problem. There are actually two statements: "Today you live" and "Today you die." You cannot collapse these two into the single statement "1." But I grant that the paradox doesn't require 5 days, just two. If, on day 1, the judge says" "Today you live," then his hand is forced tomorrow. He MUST say "Today you die" tomorrow. Otherwise, he has failed to do what he said he will do. But if his hand is forced, I can predict it. I don't think there's anything controversial about this. The controversy comes on the first day (of two). I say the judge cannot say "You live" on day one. If he does, then we get to the situation above. Thus, he must say "You die" on day one. Once again, his hand is forced, so once again it is predictible. Your question, and it's a good one, is now that I hve deduced he cannot say either "You die" or "You live" On day one, what does he say? That is the (to my mind) as yet not entirely resolved paradox.
P90
P90
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
January 29th, 2011 at 1:43:44 PM permalink
The problem can be reformulated for the ease of working with it. First let's treat days as the minimum unit.
One and only of the five cards is red. It must be placed in such a way that, knowing this rule, an observer can not determine its location by seeing all the black cards before it.

Then it becomes clear that such a placement is impossible: red card's location will be revealed by seeing all the black cards before it.

If that's not clear enough as an analogy, imagine a game. A places the card and B must guess if the next card is red or black. If B says it's red and the next card is red, B wins. If B says it's black and the next card is red, B loses. Only the turn on which the next card is red counts. It's clear that such a game can be always won by B, because decisions on previous turns do not affect the outcome.

What if there are multiple execution times during a day? Then each day can be split into multiple cards (say 24 per row). Now we come to the question of what constitutes "the day before".
If player B must guess 24+ cards in advance, he loses, because in the middle of a day he still has no information if he will run into the red card this row or the next row. But the wording mentioned "the day before", not "a day before".

If player B must guess during the previous row, it's more interesting. Row 0 (Sunday) is guaranteed black, so he says row 1 is red. On row 1, he can just turn over all cards in that row at once. If any is red, he wins his row 0 guess. In case all are black, he must play with a guess that row 2 has the red card.
This once again branches into two variants. If he must mark his guess during the previous row, but can mark a new one during the new row, player B always wins using the strategy above. If he must mark his guess and maintain it, he loses.

This comes down to the wording, then. "You will not be able to deduce the day of your execution the day before" can be read one of two ways. Common sense dictates that the judge's intent was to make sure the prisoner would not be able to count hours he has left and prepare. But that would have to be formulated as "You will not be able to maintain knowledge of the day of your execution from the day before and onward". The judge only referred to a single act of deducing the day, which set the rules of the game such that there is a guaranteed winning strategy.

Thus, Prisoner's original reasoning was correct. If he was to be executed, Judge's intended torment would have been administered, but Judge's conditions as stated would not be met.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
January 29th, 2011 at 11:23:01 PM permalink
Quote: jfalk

I my have spoken slightly too hastily when I said they were the same problem. There are actually two statements: "Today you live" and "Today you die." You cannot collapse these two into the single statement "1." But I grant that the paradox doesn't require 5 days, just two. If, on day 1, the judge says" "Today you live," then his hand is forced tomorrow. He MUST say "Today you die" tomorrow. Otherwise, he has failed to do what he said he will do. But if his hand is forced, I can predict it. I don't think there's anything controversial about this. The controversy comes on the first day (of two). I say the judge cannot say "You live" on day one. If he does, then we get to the situation above. Thus, he must say "You die" on day one. Once again, his hand is forced, so once again it is predictible. Your question, and it's a good one, is now that I hve deduced he cannot say either "You die" or "You live" On day one, what does he say? That is the (to my mind) as yet not entirely resolved paradox.



I think it's still a misinterpretation of what the judge meant by "you will not be able to deduce". If his simple statement has successfully gotten you so twisted about that you think you will both be executed and spared every day of the week, then you are clearly "not able to deduce" the day of your execution beforehand. In fact, whatever the judge says on the first day will be surprising to you - you didn't deduce it beforehand.

Edit: I found this book on the Internet, with a much better version of the paradox (by Martin Gardner):

A man tells his wife that he's getting her an unexpected gift for her birthday, and that it will be a gold watch. She thinks, "he wouldn't lie to me, so he's not getting me a gold watch." And then when she gets the gold watch, it's unexpected, and he didn't lie after all.

The premise of that section of the book, which is similar to what I've been poorly attempting to convey, is that deduction doesn't work when one party is privy to knowledge that the other party is not. In my number example, you had absolutely no way of deducing whether I'd say "2" after I said "1"; therefore, my statement that you could not deduce it was/is always true. You simply don't have the information required to make a proper deduction. The paradox, if there is one, is that you think you do -- but as we've seen, the reasoning that flows from that false sufficiency of information leads to a contradiction.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
January 30th, 2011 at 7:28:55 AM permalink
Quote: P90



If that's not clear enough as an analogy, imagine a game. A places the card and B must guess if the next card is red or black. If B says it's red and the next card is red, B wins. If B says it's black and the next card is red, B loses. Only the turn on which the next card is red counts. It's clear that such a game can be always won by B, because decisions on previous turns do not affect the outcome.



How can it always be won? Imagine, that you are playing this game. You turned two cards over, and both were black. What is your decision on the third one?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
P90
P90
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
January 30th, 2011 at 9:00:47 AM permalink
Quote: weaselman

How can it always be won? Imagine, that you are playing this game. You turned two cards over, and both were black. What is your decision on the third one?


"The next card is red". Since only the decision on the turn where the next card is red is rated ("the day before the execution"), if the next card was black, it doesn't matter.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
January 30th, 2011 at 10:51:57 AM permalink
Quote: P90

"The next card is red". Since only the decision on the turn where the next card is red is rated ("the day before the execution"), if the next card was black, it doesn't matter.


I see. I think, it's a different game then (at least, it's different from how I understand the original question). Under these rules, obviously, you can just keep saying "red" every day, and the judge's promise is impossible to keep, there is no paradox or even an ambiguity.

In the game I had in mind, once you say "red", the game is over, and you either win or lose, depending on what the next card is.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
P90
P90
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
January 30th, 2011 at 12:02:54 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

In the game I had in mind, once you say "red", the game is over, and you either win or lose, depending on what the next card is.


That could be different, but it was not the original set of conditions. Under the original set of conditions, there was no requirement that the Prisoner not make a mistaken guess before the day before; only that he can not make a correct guess the day before.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
January 30th, 2011 at 1:43:33 PM permalink
Quote: P90

That could be different, but it was not the original set of conditions. Under the original set of conditions, there was no requirement that the Prisoner not make a mistaken guess before the day before; only that he can not make a correct guess the day before.


No, "making a correct guess" is different than deducing something. I can correctly guess heads 50% of the time on a coin flip, but I cannot ever *deduce* heads.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Doc
Doc
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 7287
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
January 30th, 2011 at 1:47:04 PM permalink
Quote: P90

... Under the original set of conditions, there was no requirement that the Prisoner not make a mistaken guess before the day before; only that he can not make a correct guess the day before.


Then I guess you and I must have read the original post differently.
Quote: jfalk (in the original post of this thread)

The Judge pronounces the date of your execution: "... I guarantee you will not be able to deduce the day of your execution the day before." ..


I don't think it is reasonable to equate "making an erroneous guess every day until one day by chance it happens to be true" with "deducing the answer." If that were the case, we could easily play a game where you reveal the cards of a shuffled deck one at a time and I am so clever that I can "deduce" and tell you in advance exactly when the next card will be the Ace of Spades. Of course, I might get it right on first try or I might make as many as 51 errors first, but that would be OK, I suppose. Not.


Edit: Sorry, ME, you're ahead of me again. Just gotta learn to compose faster.
P90
P90
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
January 30th, 2011 at 2:20:45 PM permalink
Quote: Doc

I don't think it is reasonable to equate "making an erroneous guess every day until one day by chance it happens to be true" with "deducing the answer."


But if he is to be executed Friday, he will correctly deduce on Thursday than it's Friday. If it's Thursday, he will deduce on Wednesday that it's Thursday because it can't be Friday. That counts as deduction, and not merely guessing.
Ultimately, his deductions could be proven wrong, or even considered inadmissible if they can be changed, but they won't be, because under the stated conditions he can't be executed at all, and he made that deduction.

If you just have to put it that way, it would be "making a guess every day that is the closest to correct for that day, unless the rules are changed". The conditions don't say he must be able to have the correct answer at all times, merely on the day before his execution.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
January 30th, 2011 at 2:30:48 PM permalink
never mind
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
January 30th, 2011 at 2:35:17 PM permalink
Quote: P90

But if he is to be executed Friday, he will correctly deduce on Thursday than it's Friday. If it's Thursday, he will deduce on Wednesday that it's Thursday because it can't be Friday. That counts as deduction, and not merely guessing.




It's not a deduction, because it is based on a contradiction. The statement "It is Thursday because it cannot be Friday" is self-contradictory, because it uses the premise that you cannot deduce the day to ... deduce the day. Either the premise is false, and then you cannot use it to deduce anything (you can "deduce" any statement from a false premise), or the premise is true, and then your deduction cannot be.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Doc
Doc
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 7287
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
January 30th, 2011 at 3:57:20 PM permalink
Quote: P90

... But if he is to be executed Friday, he will correctly deduce on Thursday than it's Friday. If it's Thursday, he will deduce on Wednesday that it's Thursday because it can't be Friday. That counts as deduction, and not merely guessing. ...


I think I covered this a few pages back, but I'll try again.

Your claim that, "... he will deduce on Wednesday that it's Thursday because it can't be Friday," is in error -- it can be Friday. Back on Wednesday it could still be either Thursday or Friday, or even Wednesday.

On Thursday, if he is still alive, he can deduce that the execution will be on Friday -- but only after some point during the day when it is no longer possible to be executed on Thursday. He cannot rule out a Thursday execution (and deduce "Friday") until that point. The fact that he might still be alive at that time on Thursday to make that deduction does not mean that earlier on Thursday, or earlier in the week, he could be certain to still be alive later to be deducing anything at all about Friday.

Making the mistake of believing that on Wednesday he could deduce "Thursday" because he anticipates that at some time late on Thursday he will be alive and able to deduce "Friday" is what leads to the false conclusion that he cannot be executed at all -- and the complete surprise on whatever unanticipated day the executioner actually shows up at his cell.

He can only be certain of guessing correctly if he guesses every day, which I have discounted, since it is quite different from a logical deduction.

This may be equivalent to the same thing that weaselman said, but I'm not certain.
P90
P90
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
January 30th, 2011 at 7:15:27 PM permalink
Quote: Doc

He can only be certain of guessing correctly if he guesses every day, which I have discounted, since it is quite different from a logical deduction.


The angle I was approaching it from is that it counts even if based on imperfect reasoning, as long as it's more than guesswork and the result is correct.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
January 30th, 2011 at 7:37:41 PM permalink
Quote: P90

The angle I was approaching it from is that it counts even if based on imperfect reasoning, as long as it's more than guesswork and the result is correct.


The thing is, you can deduce *anything* "based on imperfect reasoning".
For example. Suppose, A is any false statement, that we are going to accept as an axiom. Then "A or B" is a theorem for any statement B. Now "A or B" is equivalent to "If not A then B", which is therefore also a theorem. Since A is false, "not A" is true. And if "not A" is true, B must also be true, because of the last theorem.
As you can see, *any* statement is provable if one of the premises is wrong, which basically means that prove/reasoning doesn't mean anything in this case.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Doc
Doc
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 7287
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
January 30th, 2011 at 8:09:38 PM permalink
Quote: P90

The angle I was approaching it from is that it counts even if based on imperfect reasoning, as long as it's more than guesswork and the result is correct.


Perhaps I missed something in one of your earlier posts. Otherwise, I have to disagree with your, "... and the result is correct." I thought that you had decided to agree with the prisoner's original conclusion: "... That exhausts the possibilities, so you cannot execute me next week."
Quote: P90 on page 3

Thus, Prisoner's original reasoning was correct. If he was to be executed, Judge's intended torment would have been administered, but Judge's conditions as stated would not be met.


The prisoner's conclusion/result is incorrect -- he can indeed be executed and would not have deduced the day. In fact, since he falsely concluded that he couldn't be executed "next week", the executioner could show up any day -- including Friday -- and execute him without the day having been deduced. That's why it is called "The Unexpected Execution."
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
January 30th, 2011 at 8:15:14 PM permalink
Quote: P90

The angle I was approaching it from is that it counts even if based on imperfect reasoning, as long as it's more than guesswork and the result is correct.


I disagree. I think the premise of the problem is that the Judge's statements are logically valid, and that valid logic is required to address the problem. Suggesting that you can address the problem with invalid logic is to throw out the entire basis for discussion. I could argue that you'll be hung on Wednesday because the highway is flat. It's a total non sequitur, but if you assign validity to an implication based on a non sequitur then all bets are off.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
P90
P90
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
January 30th, 2011 at 10:55:08 PM permalink
This becomes rather semantic... OK, I have to agree, the term "deduce" perhaps restricts his options in deriving the conclusions. However, with slightly different semantics, like "predict", "foresee" or some other term, the situation could readily fall on the prisoner's side.

If his basis for deriving the conclusions is not examined, his logic would be correct.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
January 30th, 2011 at 11:27:10 PM permalink
This is what I loathe about these "paradox" problems--they are worded so that there is no logical solution. The "paradox", therefore, is not in the problem itself, but in the ambiguous wording of the problem. Then people debate endlessly whether "bleep" means "blorp" or "bloop" or maybe "blap". It's not logic, it's semantics.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
January 31st, 2011 at 5:04:12 AM permalink
Quote: P90

This becomes rather semantic... OK, I have to agree, the term "deduce" perhaps restricts his options in deriving the conclusions. However, with slightly different semantics, like "predict", "foresee" or some other term, the situation could readily fall on the prisoner's side.



In the same sense in which every human can be said to be able to "foresee" his own death (or anything else for that matter) - all he needs to do is to say "today, I die" every morning when he wakes up.
I agree this is semantics (don't know why everybody assumes that semantics is unimportant BTW) , but I can't agree, that this is "foresight".


Quote:

If his basis for deriving the conclusions is not examined, his logic would be correct.


If the basis is not examined, then ANY logic is correct.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
P90
P90
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
January 31st, 2011 at 5:21:35 AM permalink
Quote: weaselman

In the same sense in which every human can be said to be able to "foresee" his own death (or anything else for that matter) - all he needs to do is to say "today, I die" every morning when he wakes up.


"It's Thursday, today's executions are over, it's gonna happen this week, Friday is the only day left" is rather different.

But w/e, as said, the "paradox" is simply in conflicting interpretations.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
January 31st, 2011 at 5:35:36 AM permalink
Quote: P90

"It's Thursday, today's executions are over, it's gonna happen this week, Friday is the only day left" is rather different.



How about Wednesday? How is it different?
I know, I am going to die some day this century. Let's also accept a premise that I am not clairvoyant, or otherwise exceptionally gifted with foresight, and therefore, cannot predict the day I die.
By the same logic as yours, every day I know it cannot happen tomorrow, and therefore I conclude that it must happen today.

Quote:

But w/e, as said, the "paradox" is simply in conflicting interpretations.



I don't think so. I think the paradox is caused by the contradiction in the reasoning system. You simply cannot use an "axiom" stating "foo" is false to prove that "foo" is true.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
January 31st, 2011 at 7:23:38 AM permalink
Quote: P90

This becomes rather semantic... OK, I have to agree, the term "deduce" perhaps restricts his options in deriving the conclusions. However, with slightly different semantics, like "predict", "foresee" or some other term, the situation could readily fall on the prisoner's side.

If his basis for deriving the conclusions is not examined, his logic would be correct.



Not really. The original problem statement was taken from a factual announcement by the Swedish civil authorities. They simply said "A civil defense exercise will be held this week. In order to make sure that the civil defense units are properly prepared, no one will know in advance on what day this exercise will take place".

There's a limit to what you can deduce or predict if you simply don't know something. In my counting-up-to-5 example, you simply cannot deduce whether I'll keep counting or whether I'll stop until after I've stopped. By then it's too late.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
  • Jump to: