Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > rec.puzzles > #28034

Re: Four more "oldies"

Show all headers | View raw

On 24/08/2026 18:04, James Dow Allen wrote:
> 
> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> posted:
> 
>> On 23/08/2026 18:44, James Dow Allen wrote:
>>>
>>> R.p has been slow lately.  Here are four Oldies-but-Goodies:
>>> ...
>>> For puzzle[] ... (4) assume each player has a computer with UNLIMITED
>>> memory and computational power.
> 
> A normal computer has 2^N words of memory, each word M bits, where
> N and M are finite and smallish.  The preposterously UNLIMITED computer
> has 2^F words of F bits each where F is infinite; along with appropriate
> peripheral hardware.  Never mind what hyper-reality must be postulated
> to implement such a machine.
> 
>>>
>>> (2)  ...
>>> With optimal strategy, what is the probability that the team wins?
>>> This is tricky. First try it with 3 players.
>>> Or two with 'pass' not an option.
> 
> "Tricky" in an almost perverse way.  Do try it first with only 3 players.

For 3 players I see similar sorts of strategies, except they are a little simpler.

Specifically, players can effectively bet on a 2-1 split which occurs with probability 3/4, and in 
doing so the team wins with that probability.  E.g. the strategy can be:
-   if a player sees team mates with hats RR then choose G
-   if a player sees team mates with hats GG then choose R
-   (otherwise pass)

But I don't feel that's helped me with the 4-player game.  (I suppose that I could write a program 
to enumerate what I consider plausible strategies, but I'm doubting I'm going to get anything better 
than 3/4 for the 3-player game...)

I'm probably overlooking some key insight!


Mike.

Back to rec.puzzles | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Four more "oldies" James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-08-23 17:44 +0000
  Re: Four more "oldies" David Entwistle <qnivq.ragjvfgyr@ogvagrearg.pbz> - 2026-08-24 07:40 +0000
    Re: Four more "oldies" David Entwistle <qnivq.ragjvfgyr@ogvagrearg.pbz> - 2026-08-25 07:27 +0000
      Re: Four more "oldies" ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-08-25 12:33 +0000
  Re: Four more "oldies" richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-08-24 09:45 +0000
    Re: Four more "oldies" James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-08-24 10:33 +0000
    Re: Four more "oldies" Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2026-08-27 22:45 +0300
  Re: Four more "oldies" Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2026-08-24 16:25 +0100
    Re: Four more "oldies" James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-08-24 17:04 +0000
      Re: Four more "oldies" Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2026-08-25 00:41 +0100
      Re: Four more "oldies" Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2026-08-25 01:08 +0100
        Re: Four more "oldies" James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-08-26 07:08 +0000
          Re: Four more "oldies" Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2026-08-26 23:18 +0100
            Re: Four more "oldies" Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2026-08-27 00:48 +0100
            Re: Four more "oldies" James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-08-27 10:42 +0000
              Re: Four more "oldies" Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2026-08-28 04:55 +0100
  Re: Four more "oldies" Charlie Roberts <croberts@gmail.com> - 2026-08-24 13:27 -0400
  Re: Four more "oldies" James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-08-29 00:04 +0000

csiph-web