parrots

[siegfriedandroy]

My friend was asked this question at an interview:

There are 5 parrots. There are 100 nuts. The parrots want all the nuts. The parrots are greedy. The parrots are intelligent.

First, parrot #5 will make a proposition. For it to pass, at least 50% of the parrots must vote for it. Otherwise, parrot #5 is out, and gets no nuts. Then parrot #4 can make a proposition, and so forth. How will the nuts ultimately be divided?

Supposedly, there is a clear answer.

[TBag]

I wanna say parrot 3 says he and parrot 1 get 50/50. Parrot 1 would have to take it because if he doesn't, parrot 2 will propose that he gets them all to himself, and parrot 2 will obviously vote yes so for that, so for parrot 1 to pass on 50/50 with parrot 3 would be illogical.

I think the best parrot 4 could offer would be something like 1/3rd for 2nd, (1st or 3rd) and himself, but parrot 1 or 3 would likely decline because he knows that in a 3 man situation 1 and 3 will be able to split the nuts. The best parrot 5 could do is equal splits but none of the parrots would be satisfied with that.

[DougShrapnel]

I think I know some pirates that are out of a job. /images/graemlins/smile.gif According to this

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

This doesn't bode well for us.

<font color="white">Oh and I think the answer is
1,0,1,0,98 </font>

[guesswest]

That reminds me of a really cool article (http://www.gluckman.com/Waterworld.html) I read a while ago.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]

I wanna say parrot 3 says he and parrot 1 get 50/50. Parrot 1 would have to take it because if he doesn't, parrot 2 will propose that he gets them all to himself, and parrot 2 will obviously vote yes so for that, so for parrot 1 to pass on 50/50 with parrot 3 would be illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldnt P3 give himself 99 and P1 1? P1 gets one in this round or zero in the next.

[FlFishOn]

Work it backwards.

2,1, 2-100 1-0 vote is 1-1 two gets 'em
3,2,1 3-99 2-0 1-1, 1 is compelled to vote yes as is 3, 2-1 it passes
4,3,2,1 4-99 3-0 2-1 1-0 3&amp;1 vote no, passes 2-2
all 5 5-98 4-0 3-1 2-0 1-1 4&amp;2 vote no, passes 3-2

Or not.

[hmkpoker]

Solve recursively. (in white below) <font color="white">

If two parrots are voting, the allocation proposed by #2 will be 0-100. He will vote for himself and take all the nuts.

Knowing this, if three parrots are voting, #3 must make a wager that is just enough to get #1 to vote yes. (#2 will inevitably vote no, because if the proposition fails he gets all the nuts) #3 proposes 1-0-99, which is just enough to get #1 to vote yes on the grounds that it is the best option he'll get.

Knowing this, if four parrots are voting, #4 needs only other vote. The distribution goes 0-1-0-99, because this is the only way #2 gets anything (securing #1's vote will take at least two nuts, because he knows he'll get one nut off the next vote anyway if he votes against)

Thus, #5 is the parrot who gets all the nuts. He needs to secure only two votes, and can do so by making it just profitable enough for them. He proposes the distribution 1-0-1-0-98, forcing #1 and #3 to either settle for one nut with his proposition, or no nuts with the next proposition.
</font>

Boy, that's one lucky bird.

[hmkpoker]

That's what I got, I was just more verbose about it /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[PoBoy321]

Parrots can't vote.

[hmkpoker]

If you're too stupid to work out logic puzzles, just don't post.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're too stupid to work out logic puzzles, just don't post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeez, lighten up.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're too stupid to work out logic puzzles, just don't post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeez, lighten up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a light-hearted guy, but unfortunately you made my [censored] list, so I need a post or two to vent /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[PoBoy321]

EDIT: I won't bother starting a pissing match.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: I won't bother starting a pissing match.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you had something presumably derrogatory to say, then took it back, and in so doing elected to announce that you wouldn't do such a thing rather than deleting the post.

Unlike every other encounter we've had, you made no attempt to attack me after I pointed out that you were intellectually deficient, nor did you challenge it despite the challenge's relative objectivity compared to our usual topics of debate. (this, of course, was after you demonstrated your inability to execute simple logic with your first reply)

You are clearly attempting to avoid confrontation, as evidenced by your decision to denounce the typical back-and-forth that we've usually had, which you've never had any hesitation to perpetuate, as a "pissing contest," in an attempt at denouncing me for something you usually do as well. This way, I'll look bad when I reply to the snide insult you made which you can passive-aggressively deny later.

Your atypical defensiveness and passivity in this objective confrontation, as well as the fact that you can't figure out simple game theory, suggests that you are insecure about your own mental capacity, and would prefer to avoid the issue altogether, but you couldn't resist taking a stab after I amicably explained that and why I felt entitled to call you a donkeyfucking retard.

So there's my piss.

Now here's your opportunity to call me an unhappy person or something of the like, because you don't have the grounds to insult me as you usually do, as I have demonstrated rather clearly that you, PoBoy, are a [censored].



Do you like your chili?

I call it Mr. and Mrs. PoBoy chili.


There, I'm done /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[PoBoy321]

How does making a joke by saying that parrots can't vote (which in reality, they can't), belie any inability to solve the puzzle?

Also, I don't remember the original comment specifically, but it had something to do with pointing to the fact that you're an ignorant biggot, but it seemed OT so I got rid of it.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
How does making a joke by saying that parrots can't vote (which in reality, they can't), belie any inability to solve the puzzle?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I'm smart, and I say so.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I don't remember the original comment specifically, but it had something to do with pointing to the fact that you're an ignorant biggot, but it seemed OT so I got rid of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you decided to replace it with a post explaining that you had done something stupid but elected not to rather than simply deleting it, why? I think I've already covered that.

[ QUOTE ]
you're an ignorant biggot

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, you do want a pissing contest.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: I won't bother starting a pissing match.

[/ QUOTE ]

three hours later, in the "slightly left wing libertarian" thread, I make a statement to someone else in a discussion you weren't involved in, and you decided to jump in with:

[ QUOTE ]
OMG! He wrote a long post! Of course it proves that he's right!!!

[/ QUOTE ]


Typical, you do want to start pissing contests, but only in places where it isn't easily provable that you aren't capable of useful thinking.