Pure maths, physics, logic (braingames.ru): non-trade-related brain games - page 11
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
"What number is on your hubcap?" First one, then the other. That's two questions. The order of the questions is chosen by the occupiers, i.e. it's not set in stone.
The order in which the questions are asked is chosen by the occupiers, i.e. it is not rigidly set.
No way, in the condition the order is reversed. If the order is arbitrary, the problem is unsolvable.
he meant who to start with
Who to start with in each circle is decided by the occupiers. A circle is two questions asked of the MM, but in an order determined by the occupiers.
On the other hand, if you ask questions 15 times in a row to just one MM, the second nah, he won't be able to get as much information out of the alternating questions.
There is some uncertainty in the task, I don't like it at all. It needs more data. Well, let's say, like each MM is obliged to extract as much information from the answer of the second.
Then even with 15 questions to one MM in a row the procedure will terminate after the same number of steps: for each of 15 questions to one MM his answer is different each time, because it takes into account the previous answer. Like. No, not like that.
It's pretty straightforward - MM1's silence narrows the range for MM2's number by 1 on both sides. So alternating questions gradually narrows the range.
N questions in a row are equivalent to one question. That's why the condition has "alternating" in it.
It's pretty straightforward - MM1's silence narrows the range for MM2's number by 1 on both sides. So alternating questions gradually narrows the range.
N questions in a row are equivalent to one question. That's why the condition has "alternating" in it.
Yeah, well, they didn't get a chance to stipulate an algorithm, by convention.
I didn't, that's why they're looking for knowledge by analyzing all the answers of the previous one and their own too. How else, Misha?
What are the answers ???
There's one wrong and it's on the sausage.
I don't get the problem at all.
Read my post, I supplemented it. Read it carefully.
Misha, you're the one who appreciated the two wise men problem, and it's much more complicated than that.