In the two guards riddle, I don't get how the solution makes sensePlease explain
You asked one of the guards which phone does MKBHD has a bias towards, and you should solve it without even needing to ask the other.
>>16973002I'll ask them if I'm good at oral sex. The truth teller cannot in good conscience answer since he does not know. The liar will answer yes. That's how I exit.
>>16973002You're asking this on /sci/, so presumably you are too autistic to parse logic in plain language. Very well.Let [math]D={D1,D2}[/math] be the two Doors (one leads to freedom, the other to death).Let [math]G={GT,GL}[/math] be the two Guards (one always tells the Truth, one always Lies)Let [math]f:D{0,1}[/math] be the freedom function:[eqn]f(D_i) = \begin{cases} 1 & \text{if } D_i \text{ leads to freedom} \\ 0 & \text{if } D_i \text{ leads to death} \end{cases}[/eqn]Define a truth-functional operator for each guard. For any yes/no proposition [math]P[/math]:[math]answer(GT,P)=[[P]][/math][math]answer(GL,P)=¬[[P]][/math]where [math][[P]]∈{0,1}[/math] denotes the actual truth value of [math]P[/math].We want to find a question [math]Q[/math] such that [math]answer(GT,Q)=answer(GL,Q) [/math] We achieve this by composing the two truth functions. We ask a nested question that forces the lie to be applied twice.Consider the question "If I asked the other guard whether [math]D1[/math] leads to freedom, would he say yes?" [math]P≡(f(D1)=1)[/math][math]Q(Gi)=answer(Gj,P)[/math] where [math]j \neq i[/math] the response is:[math]R(Gi)=answer(Gi,Q(Gi))=answer(Gi,answer(Gj,P))[/math] Case 1:[math]R(GT)=answer(GT,answer(GL,P)) [/math] [math]R(GT)=answer(GL,P)=¬[[P]] [/math] Case 2:[math]R(GL)=answer(GL,answer(GT,P)) [/math] [math]R(GL)=¬answer(GT,P)=¬[[P]] [/math] Thus:[eqn]\boxed{R(G_T) = R(G_L) = \lnot [[P]]}[/eqn] The composition answer always involves exactly one truthful evaluation and one inversion, regardless of order: Since the composition [math]id∘¬=¬∘id=¬[/math], the guard you happen to ask is irrelevant.
>>16973002Ask guard A:>if I asked guard B if his door was safe, what would he say?If the answer is "yes:">if guard A were lying, that would mean guard B would tell the truth and say "no." >if guard A were telling the truth, then guard B would lie and say "yes." >either way, that is the danger door. Take the opposite.If the answer is "no:">If guard A is lying, Guard B would tell the truth and say "yes.">If guard A is telling the truth, guard B would lie and say "no.">either way, that is the safe door.The point is that you don't really care which guard is lying. The goal is "don't die."
>>16973092What if the answer is "I don't know."?
>>16973189That being a possible answer defeats the purpose of the riddle so we can discount it as a possibility.
>>16973002imagine there's a million doors and a goat is being raped behind 999,999 of them. Would you still open a door?
>>16973493>so we canno, you cannot. you just cannot assume the guards know which door is safe therefore it cannot defeat the purpose of the riddleyou just didn't write a good riddle, that's all that's all
>>16973539>you just cannot assume the guards know which door is safeThat's explicitly stated in the riddle.
>>16973189>>16973493>>16973539>>16973549The guards both know what's behind the doors, but if they're allowed to say anything other than Yes/No the riddle falls apart.The lying guard only needs to lie, so he could say "I don't know" if asked what's behind the door. Meanwhile, the truthful guard under this premise genuinely wouldn't know if the liar would say the exact opposite of the truth or something like "I don't know", so he must truthfully answer "I don't know" as well.
>>16973683>if they're allowed to say anything other than Yes/NoOr some other binary set of answers that satisfies:>>16973047
>>16973683This. Without a strict limitation on allowable answers they could say any limitless number of truths or falsehooods.
>>16973047can you rephrase this using cute anime girls
>>16976323Sorry, just a hot jewish girl, no anime.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grOpvXBmTx8
>>16973047This...this is excellent
>>16973002Commutative property
>>16973002Take a gunShoot 1 through the headAsk the surivior if the other is alive
>>16973092what if you want to die
>>1697300259:00https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFkGXB6aUAU
I would just ask the one who tells the truth
>>16977985Okay but which door is safe?
>>16973047Thanks claude
>>16973047You wrote all that and you say HE'S autistic?
>>16976355good enough
What we consider reality is just a mathematical collection of all possible universe states transformed by all possible laws into the multiverse. All moments in all possible universes are mathematically consistent, therefore to the embedded minds they are reality. Mathematical structure IS existence WITHIN the structure. Embedded minds cannot distinguish “mathematically instantiated” from “metaphysically real,” because all evidence available to them is generated internally by the structure itself. If a structure fully generates observers, causality, memory, physics, and self-consistent experience, then “being reality” is indistinguishable from “being experienced as reality by embedded observers.”The argument is not necessarily that mathematical existence and metaphysical existence are proven identical, but that privileged metaphysical status becomes explanatorily idle if it produces no internally accessible consequences.If reality has additional properties, they either causally interact, leading to distinct differences, or they do not. In either case they must be described mathematically, which collapses us back to a mathematical timeline.My position is that either everything possible is real in some timeline or other, or nothing is real. Our local embedding forces a limited perspective on reality.
>>16973683It's worse. "I don't know" by the truthful one could mean "that's what the lying guard would say" but also that he genuinely doesn't know. Also the lying one could say "I don't know", which means the truthful one would be incorrect (but not lying).
>>16973047this is the good shit
