OK Zamboe, lets settle this. New thread

[IxianMace]

Pheww, that was all gibberish to me. I was never really good at maths in school. It's just good that everything is settled now, it would have been a shame if things got out of hand just due to a riddle. :(

[zamboe]

First, and I am sure about it. While two events, call it E1 and E2, have differente odds, with P(E1) > P(E2) , then the more turns (rounds) E1 and E2 are being executed the less the chance of E2 to happen.

So based on that, applying to the robots, the MAX odd for R1 to survive should be in the less possible rounds, in this case just one round.

As I stated in my answer, there are two situations that show the chance of an endless solution, if R3 is hit, a perpetual duel between R1 and R2 might happen.

P ( R1(m) & R2(m) & R3(h) & R1(m) & R2(m) & R1(h) ) has a probability of 3.675%

This gives R1 a win after 3 turns.

To be accurate, you must total these probabilities up. Remember that R1 can choose 2 possible paths: Aim at R3, or deliberately MISS. If he aims at R3, we MUST add up the probabilities of his misses IN ADDITION to his hits, becasue they are BOTH SUB-TREES BENEATH the action of "R1 firing at R3'

So lets do it:

In the case of R1 FIRING AT R3

Total Odds For R1 to WIN after just 3 turns when he takes aim and fires at R3:

4.5 + 10.5 + 3.675 = 18.675

If you take the limit of this, you will get precisely 3/13 or 23%, just like I said.

In this case your adding ( 3.675 -> limit) the case I mentioned before, an endless solution, in that situation R2 will never hit R1 and R1 will never hit R2, and therefore it doesn

[rogue1896]

it looks like you guys decided to turn on the Air Conditioner. ::)

[emprworm]

If the problem can accept R1 to duck, then your argument is ok.

whatever, Zamboe. The answer to the riddle was the R1 deliberately misses, giving him odds of R(1)M at 1.00. Nothing needs to be said about ducking. The problem gives R1 the ability to deliberately miss. He fires, he misses. Odds of missing = 1.00.

And by your own admission (finally), you agree that I am fully correct.

And, if you cannot see this as an obvious part of the riddle, that only goes to show how poor you are with story problems.

No matter how much you try to muddy the issue, the fact remains:

If R1 deliberately misses, his odds of survival are 38%

that fact does not change, no matter how much spin you try to put on it. Deliberately missing (not ducking) gives you 38% odds of winning the game.

In this case your adding ( 3.675 -> limit) the case I mentioned before, an endless solution, in that situation R2 will never hit R1 and R1 will never hit R2, and therefore it doesn

[zamboe]

whatever, Zamboe. The answer to the riddle was the R1 deliberately misses, giving him odds of R(1)M at 1.00. Nothing needs to be said about ducking. The problem gives R1 the ability to deliberately miss. He fires, he misses. Odds of missing = 1.00.

And by your own admission (finally), you agree that I am fully correct.

Odds of missing = 100% , well what riddle are you talking about ??? ROFL.

R1 cannot deliberately miss, odds of missing are 0.7 (70%) and that is stated in the riddle info. It proves that you are talking about a different riddle than the one you posted.

And deliberately missing DOES change what CANNOT be changed like the fixed values of hitting (0.3) or missing (0.7). So in your twisted comprenhesion, if R1 feels like then it might think "what the heck I can shoot with 30% in the best case, but today I am lazy maybe 12% or 8%." Changing completly what cant be changed, as the problem stated in the very beggining.

If you want to validate what you said, then you should repost a new problem that includes the chance of ducking (deliberately missing), that's a total differente situation, so don't ignore it.

unbelievable. you really dont get probability do you?

Bad news for you emprworm, YOU don't get it.

The odds are governed on the entire set as a WHOLE, not on each individual firing. Every single time R1 shoots, he still has a 30% chance of hitting.

You finally accepted I am right.

Your own words "Every single time R1 shoots, he still has a 30% of chance of hitting.", just a few lines above you were saying P(R1 hit) is cero, when you said P(R1m)=100%. LOL.

Ridiculous. REALLY. AND TO SHOW THAT I WILL EXPLAIN IT TO YOU WITH A SIMPLE EXAMPLE.

BASIC EXAMPLE FOR EMPRWORM

--------------------------

One black bag contains 3 balls. All balls are exactly the same but in the colors. One ball is red, other is blue, and other is green.

It is not possible to diferentiate when picking one ball off the bag.

Chance of getting the red ball = 1/3

Chance of getting the blue ball = 1/3

Chance of getting the green ball = 1/3

TOTAL (wheather you like it or not) = 1/3+1/3+1/3 = 1 = 100%

Question : What are the odds of getting off the bag the red ball two times in a row ?

Odd = 1/3*1/3=1/9

Question : What are the odds of getting off the bag the red ball 3 times in a row ?

Odd = 1/3*1/3*1/3 = 1/27

So :

1 time : 1/3

2 times : 1/9

3 times : 1/27

Look what emprworm said "They do NOT diminish over time", ROFL.

I proved you that odds DO diminish over time.

So, the going back to the main problem.

THERE IS A CHANCE that a duel between R1 and R2 they dont hit let say in 10 rounds, also in 100 rounds, also in 100000000 rounds, also in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000 rounds, because they are not 100% efective. THAT CHANCE EXISTS AND TRYING TO DENY THAT IS JUST RIDICULOUS.

If you say the contrary, then you are saying that ALWAYS, NO MATTER WHAT, R1 will hit R2 or R2 will hit R1, and that means that two or at least one of them is 100% accurate, which is not true.

And stop BS about me in other threads, with your riddles, i've never read someone with such an ego that can't take it. You expect that others belive in you answer, just because it's you who say it? . LOL. Facts, numbers and logics is my argument, while you in the contrary try to make fun of me in other threads just because you can't take it. So funny you are emprworm. Keep doing it, I like to laugh when I read your posts.

[emprworm]

[rogue1896]

well i guess the air conditioner broke down. lol. does it really matter? are either of you not going to be able to sleep b/c the other won't realize what you see? then again, i do enjoy seeing something that isn't a direct flame and more of an argument.