The Overcrowded Prison

[swansont]

zapatos has this at the bottom of every single post he makes:

 

And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it. -MP[/size]

 

"As a good christian, I'm always going to disagree with any proof you try to give me." -Peter BE cimp[/size]

 

 

THAT, DrP, is "who starts being an arsehole first." AND THEN, on top of that, even AFTER I point out that he CONCLUDED his post with the quote that I repeatedly cited, not ONE of you has the courage to admit that he truly was wrong. Instead you attack me.

!

Moderator Note

It's a signature. All users can add these to their posts (there may be a threshold before this is permitted). It happens automatically. Generally speaking, these are never considered to be part of a post, and it is considered poor form to go off on a tangent to comment about them.

 

 

As to your ignorant remark about "fear and loathing bred by the right wing propaganda machine," why don't you address that in a separate thread. I will accomodate you with facts and analysis to which you are unaccustomed.

 

It is NOT the "right wing" that has repeatedly rioted, and set fires, and attacked Trump supporters, it is YOUR side.

It is NOT the "right wing" that shot up congressmen on a baseball field in Virginia. It was YOUR side.

 

It is NOT the "right wing" that had three correspondents resign in disgrace for publishing "bulshit (sic)." It was CNN, YOUR side.

It is NOT "right wing" professors who have been in the news for radical, insane, hateful actions. It was exclusively YOUR SIDE.

 

I direct you to the scholarly paper cited earlier, "A Crisis of Competence". It describes you and your PhD Leftist friends here perfectly.

 

Here is the link. https://www.nas.org/images/documents/A_Crisis_of_Competence.pdf

!

Moderator Note

Off-topic remarks like this are also considered poor form. So much so that they are against the rules.

 

Regardless of "who starts being an arsehole first" it is never a valid excuse for engaging in such behavior. It's disappointing that people are taking the bait.

 

Having said that, though, I'd have to say that the starter would be the one who started berating other people for not figuring out the puzzle within an hour or so of it being posted. Especially with the implication that comes with it, that you figured it out quickly yourself. Taunting isn't pretty.

 

 

ALL will cease and desist. Discuss the puzzle, and nothing else. (which would include refraining from making replies to this modnote)

 

[GeniusIsDisruptive]

GeniusIsDisruptive - You come across as someone who would like acknowledgement from the people in this thread that you posted a very difficult riddle which is too hard to figure out for the ignorant, leftist idiots like myself and the rest of the people reading this thread. This is actually not how you come across, it is exactly what you are saying in your posts. Do you realise how cardinaly (sic) dumb your stance is and do you realise what a complete fool you are making of youreself (sic) ? Would you care to reconsider the above and reconsider your attacks on every single person who engages with you in this thread?

 

1. YOU claim it is "a very difficult riddle." I did not. YOU and your friends make such claims and then attribute them to me. The riddle is interesting and it presents a corollary to which I alluded and you clearly missed.

 

2. We are discussing the riddle, and your reaction(s) to it. Not ONE PERSON had anything to say of a complimentary or appreciative nature. No not one. ONLY AFTER there had been 89 views did I point out that nobody had correctly solved it. In this "science" forum full of PhDs.

 

3. Would you care to reconsider the above, including your misspellings and how "cardinaly (sic) dumb" your remarks were?

[koti]

Moderator is right, I withdrew my comment.

Edited July 12, 2017 by koti

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

FFS, STOP IT

 

When I said "Discuss the puzzle, and nothing else", that was not an invitation to castigate anyone, and I also pointed out that responding in kind is also not acceptable. Where did anyone get the idea that "What are you nine years old ?!" is an acceptable response?

 

[DrKrettin]

I confess to not thinking clearly, anyway. The key is in the approach. If you assume the blind prisoner C is wearing a red hat, then if A says he doesn't know it is because B must be wearing a black hat. When B says he doesn't know, it creates a logical inconsistency because he must know. So the blind prisoner can't be wearing a red hat.

 

Except that he could be, and prisoner A or B or both are not particularly intelligent, or one or both are colourblind and see red as black.

 

I can't actually see where my original logic falls down, so I find it quite interesting.

Edited July 13, 2017 by DrKrettin

[zapatos]

Yes, we can know for certain C is wearing a black hat assuming prisoners A and B are not fools.

 

If C is wearing a red hat, the only way A can say "I don't know" is if B has a black hat.

And if A said "I don't know" while observing a red hat on C, then B will know for certain he has on a black hat and therefore won't say "I don't know".

 

The only scenario where both A and B 'don't know' involves C wearing a black hat (for example if all three wore black hats).

 

I think my original logic falls down by not originally accounting for the additional information gathered once the game started.

[koti]

Yes, we can know for certain C is wearing a black hat assuming prisoners A and B are not fools.

 

If C is wearing a red hat, the only way A can say "I don't know" is if B has a black hat.

And if A said "I don't know" while observing a red hat on C, then B will know for certain he has on a black hat and therefore won't say "I don't know".

 

The only scenario where both A and B 'don't know' involves C wearing a black hat (for example if all three wore black hats).

 

I think my original logic falls down by not originally accounting for the additional information gathered once the game started.

Nice explanation Zapatos. I think Ive seen somewehere that these riddle types are called "induction riddles" A similar mental mechanism needs to be used for the 2 door riddle from the movie "Labyrynth" here:

http://nerdist.com/how-to-beat-the-labyrinth-two-door-riddle/

 

What I still dont understand is why there are 2 red hats and 3 black hats instead of 2+2. There are many variations of this riddle but its the first time I see this one.

[MigL]

Just came across this, and maybe its just hindsight, having read the whole thread...

 

It occurred to me early on that the third prisoner is BLIND ( hint, hint ), and so, cannot make a decision based on what he sees. He can only make his decision based on what the other two prisoners see, and his hat is common to what they see.

 

That is how the analysis should proceed, and where previous analysis failed

Edited July 14, 2017 by MigL

[CharonY]

You don't need to incorporate that, if you assume that they act upon all the information they get.

 

After the first Prisoner the following combinations remain possible (in order P1, P2, P3)

 

RBR

RRB

RBB

BBR

BRB

BBB

 

As you can see, from the viewpoint of P3 only RBR and BBR are possible combinations where they wear a red hat, all other would be black.

 

With P2 we first can eliminate RBR (as that would require seeing two red hats) and also BBR, because if P2 saw a red hat on P3 he would know that he had to wear a black hat (otherwise it would be BRR and P1 would know to have a black hat). Thus all the remaining combinations would default to P3 with a black hat.

Edited July 14, 2017 by CharonY

[HiMyNameIs......]

He's blind he only sees black. That's all I got

[studiot]

Nice explanation Zapatos. I think Ive seen somewehere that these riddle types are called "induction riddles" A similar mental mechanism needs to be used for the 2 door riddle from the movie "Labyrynth" here:

http://nerdist.com/how-to-beat-the-labyrinth-two-door-riddle/

 

What I still dont understand is why there are 2 red hats and 3 black hats instead of 2+2. There are many variations of this riddle but its the first time I see this one.

 

Yes zapatos has the right approach.

 

Instead of listing all permutations of hat colours, consider the information available at each stage.

 

Information avilable = (what was know before) + ( what can be seen at that stage)

 

So the reason the question is not 2+2 is shown as follows:

 

Assume there are 2 hats of each colour.

 

A goes first and if he can see two hats of the same colour he knows his must be of the opposite colour so he can declare this and terminates the proceedings.

 

B goes second and knows that A cannot have seen two hats of the same colour so since A sees the hats of B and C, B knows this his hat must be of the opposite colour from C.

 

Add the new information B can see the hat of C so knows his own hat must be of the opposite colour from the hat of C.

 

So B declares and terminates the proceedings.

 

So C's declaration is never reached.

 

If you rework the 3 + 2 situation you will reach C

[studiot]

Just to pick up on CharonY's analysis (which is correct)

 

The point about the the blindness of C is that

 

It doesn't matter what he sees (or doesn't see).

What matters is that if he had a red hat on B was in a positon to determine his own hat colour and so C would never have the opportunity to speak.

 

But there are 4 available configurations whereby B can see a black hat on C, so B has to say 'don't know' if C has a black hat.

 

Only once B has spoken I don't know, it becomes C's turn and B will only say 'I don't know' if C has a black hat.

 

Note that for this to happen A can have either a red or a black hat so it is not possible to determine all hat colours from the information given.

[Commander]

I read the Puzzle but pardon me I have not read all the other posts !

 

I am giving the answer in the Spoiler !

 

 

 

 

All three Prisoners are equally intelligent and if the first Prisoner sees 2 Red hats in front he would have stated that he had a Black hat on.

Therefore the first [the one standing behind the other two] could not have seen 2 Red hats in front.

The second one [standing in the middle] hears this answer & if he sees a Red hat in front he would have known that he himself does not have a Red hat on & therefore would have declared that his own hat was Black and as he declared he did not know he could not have seen a Red hat on the Prisoner standing in front & still Blindfolded.

Therefore this LUCKY Prisoner declares that

MY HAT IS BLACK

 

 

[Commander]

Any comments on my solution ?

 

Has it been understood ?

[studiot]

Any comments on my solution ?

 

Has it been understood ?

 

Yes it was inline with what I said.

Lining the prisoners up like that is an interesting way of explaining which hat each can see, although it was not put that way in the original.

 

You didn't answer the spinoff questions, why 3 black hats and why is the last person blind?

[Commander]

 

Yes it was inline with what I said.

Lining the prisoners up like that is an interesting way of explaining which hat each can see, although it was not put that way in the original.

 

You didn't answer the spinoff questions, why 3 black hats and why is the last person blind?

 

Hello Studiot !

 

TY

 

Sorry I did not read all the spinoff Qs

 

I am sure you had derived the same Solution & Congrats !

 

I had solved this puzzle years back when a contemporary proposed this when we were all competing to get selected into the Air Force.

 

He said 3 White Caps & 2 Reds & it doesn't matter as it has to be 3 of one Color and 2 of the other.

 

The one answering third need not be Blind if the three are made to stand in a file and in any case he can not see anyone's hat/cap and that is the point.

 

He has to derive his answer only from what he hears & he can always decide on his own hat color whether the First and Second responders can decide or not.

 

If the First says Yes he knows then third has a Red Hat & if the Second says he knows then too the third has a Red hat or else he has a Black Hat.

 

To escape Prison for sure the third has to jump in and interject that he has such and such Hat as soon as the First or Second Prisoner mentions Yes & before telling the Color.

 

That is possible as nowadays it is Common on TV Debates never to allow anyone else to complete a Sentence !

Edited July 21, 2017 by Commander

[GeniusIsDisruptive]

July 10 - Hence, the blind guy doesn't know with certainty the color of his hat. – Zapatos

 

July 10 – Zapatos - Of course, that isn't what I said, is it? What is amusing is your inability to actually read what I write (you are now two for two).

 

Did you come to this site because you ran out of local people to be rude to?

 

Here is “RUDE”, Zapatos:

__________________

July 10 – Manticore  

Your egotistical rant might make some kind of sense if you were right.

 

 

July 11 – koti  While at it, you could continue your progress by stoping projecting your insecurities on this forum to a point in which a group of 12 year olds could see them...not to mention a bunch of PHD's who you are trying to "disrupt" with your bulshit   There are 14 year olds on this forum writing more coherent and valusble posts than you.

 

July 11 – DrP  No-one wants to hear your ignorant angry rants except your brainwashed mates.

 

 You come across really angry about stuff - probably because that is synonymous with the kind of fear and loathing bred by right wing propaganda in people that believe it. It's sad.

   

 

July 11 – LordAntares -  you're an average moron who read something on the New World Order or some other crackpot site and you think you're going to ''save christianity'' and ''disprove science''. I have not read a single intelligent thing by you. Perhaps you should learn some science.

 [GeniusIsDisruptive replies:  Your hatefulness, condescension, and dishonesty are extremely reprehensible.  Leftists such as you often are.]

 

July 12 – koti  - "What are you nine years old ?!"

 

 

Moderator is right, I withdrew my comment.

 

////////////////////////////     Rude comments directed at me are truncated.  /////////

[swansont]

Since you can't focus on the topic, this is closed.