Best Answer Writersblock , 10 October 2007 - 11:14 PM

Hmmm. This is an ambiguous question I think. I read it originally as surviving one encounter, but it can also be understood to be the "last man standing."

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account. As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends. Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games. If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top. If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen. Thanks and enjoy the Den :-) |

Guest Message by DevFuse

Started by bonanova, Oct 10 2007 11:52 AM

Best Answer Writersblock , 10 October 2007 - 11:14 PM

Hmmm. This is an ambiguous question I think. I read it originally as surviving one encounter, but it can also be understood to be the "last man standing."

Spoiler for solution

Go to the full post
80 replies to this topic

Posted 06 March 2008 - 01:31 PM

What would be nice would be to turn the question into more of an anthropology compete/cooperate question. For example,

During a P/K confrontation, there is an 80% chance the Killer will survive and the Pacifist dies, 9% chance no outcome, 10% chance Pacifist kills Killer, 1% chance a P/K alliance forms, effectively creating a new entity that has different characteristics of interaction with other entities.

During a P/P confrontation, there is a 10% chance an alliance will form, effectively unifying the P/P pair into a new P with greater chances of survival in a P/K confrontation, 90% chance no outcome

During a K/K confrontation, there is a 50% chance one will die, a 40% chance no outcome, a 10% chance a K/K alliance forms, effectively making a new K with more successful victory chances in any confrontation

Also add that the chance of an encounter increases by some factor as population increases.

Let us also assume that confrontations are over resources, so we also add that at any encounter there is a probability P1 of a confrontation, which is variable depending on how each side perceives availability of resources. The larger the total population, the less available resources seem.

of some kind and as the population increases the chances of confrontation increase because of relative resource scarcity, conversely for population decreases.

Let's also throw in that all alliances have a inherent stability, where at each moment in time there is a probability of dissolution. P/P alliances are stronger than P/K alliances.

Let's also note that alliances can expand, eg: a P/P alliance meets a new P, thus forming a P/P/P alliance, with yet further enhanced characteristics.

Let's also add the rule that alliances can create technology, effectively increasing perceived availability of resources. Also, the rule that the longer an alliance is in existence the better technology it has. The technology is measured in an alliance as some recorded 'quantity', and the more of it the more the alliance perceives resources as available. Also, the more it has, the better chances it has of surviving a confrontation.

Now, what do you want to be? a P or a K?

Intuitively I'd guess that P-type alliances will triumph with oscillations in amount of K membership.

During a P/K confrontation, there is an 80% chance the Killer will survive and the Pacifist dies, 9% chance no outcome, 10% chance Pacifist kills Killer, 1% chance a P/K alliance forms, effectively creating a new entity that has different characteristics of interaction with other entities.

During a P/P confrontation, there is a 10% chance an alliance will form, effectively unifying the P/P pair into a new P with greater chances of survival in a P/K confrontation, 90% chance no outcome

During a K/K confrontation, there is a 50% chance one will die, a 40% chance no outcome, a 10% chance a K/K alliance forms, effectively making a new K with more successful victory chances in any confrontation

Also add that the chance of an encounter increases by some factor as population increases.

Let us also assume that confrontations are over resources, so we also add that at any encounter there is a probability P1 of a confrontation, which is variable depending on how each side perceives availability of resources. The larger the total population, the less available resources seem.

of some kind and as the population increases the chances of confrontation increase because of relative resource scarcity, conversely for population decreases.

Let's also throw in that all alliances have a inherent stability, where at each moment in time there is a probability of dissolution. P/P alliances are stronger than P/K alliances.

Let's also note that alliances can expand, eg: a P/P alliance meets a new P, thus forming a P/P/P alliance, with yet further enhanced characteristics.

Let's also add the rule that alliances can create technology, effectively increasing perceived availability of resources. Also, the rule that the longer an alliance is in existence the better technology it has. The technology is measured in an alliance as some recorded 'quantity', and the more of it the more the alliance perceives resources as available. Also, the more it has, the better chances it has of surviving a confrontation.

Now, what do you want to be? a P or a K?

Intuitively I'd guess that P-type alliances will triumph with oscillations in amount of K membership.

**Edited by Oblivion, 06 March 2008 - 01:31 PM.**

Posted 08 March 2008 - 05:13 AM

kk im going k.

p + p = 9/20 chances to live.

p + k = 10/20

9-10=-1 lifes

k+p= 10/20 live

k+k= 9/20 deaths

10-9= +1 lives

Kiger

p + p = 9/20 chances to live.

p + k = 10/20

9-10=-1 lifes

k+p= 10/20 live

k+k= 9/20 deaths

10-9= +1 lives

Kiger

**Edited by kiger, 08 March 2008 - 05:15 AM.**

Posted 15 March 2008 - 01:55 PM

I personally thought what no one else thought why dont whoever wants to stay alive leave? it is so much more sensible then they could go to liike peaceville and btw this isn't a joke

Posted 16 March 2008 - 06:23 AM

Truthfully it really doesnt matter because no matter if you are a pacifist or a killer you die. My advice get out of Killville.

Posted 18 March 2008 - 11:33 AM

You live in Killville - a town populated by 10 killers and 10 pacifists.

When a pacifist meets a pacifist, nothing happens.

When a pacifist meets a killer, the pacifist is killed.

When two killers meet, both die.

Assume meetings always occur between exactly two persons

and the pairs involved are completely random.

Are your odds of survival better if you are a killer? or a pacifist?Or does it matter?Spoiler for hint

pacifist because killer+killer=2 died population down pacifist+killer=1 died poulation down by 1 pacifist+pacifist=no one dies

answer=PACIFIST

Posted 19 March 2008 - 07:52 PM

bona - your puzzles are usually so well written and easy to interpret. This one was slightly ambiguous which threw me off. Regardless, I liked it a lot.

Posted 19 March 2008 - 08:13 PM

Spoiler for answer

Posted 19 March 2008 - 08:41 PM

be a pacifist and let the killers kill themselves

Posted 25 March 2008 - 09:49 PM

Assuming that all meetings are truly random, it is most likely that everyone dies (including you) with an even number of both groups. While it would be possible for the killers to all kill themselves off and leave 1+ pacifists behind, it's not very likely. Out of the 4 meeting types (PP, PK, KP, KK), two kill pacifists only one kills killers. Mathematically, it looks like a Pacifist should be better off in even numbers, but I have run through a couple of random scenarios that take the population decreases into account, and every time the score ends 0-0. So it would seem to me that moving is your best option to survive if the numbers are even. I don't think that probabilites/statistics type math tells the whole story due to the population decreases over time. Of course, an odd number of killers is a horse of a different color, it's better to be a killer in that scenario, because killer deaths always occur evenly, so there will be a murderous survivor with the town to himself.

Posted 26 March 2008 - 05:06 PM

Of course, an odd number of killers is a horse of a different color, it's better to be a killer in that scenario, because killer deaths always occur evenly, so there will be a murderous survivor with the town to himself.

you're right up until that sentence. the odds will fluctuate with the decrease in population to favor either side, but will eventually end up at 50% each again. as there will never be an odd number of killers, there will not be a murderous survivor. they'll kill each other

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users