/sci/ - Science & Math

>1
>2
>3

>>7470166
>1
>2
>3
Just so that you don't win.

>>7470163
4

>>7470163
>5

>>7470163
>-1

>27
>12
>98

>>7470697
>retard

>>7470163
0

>>7470719
>if one of your numbers is the lowest unique integer.

>>7470724
Positive

>>7470735
>POSITIVE
O
S
I
T
I
V
E

>>7470738
zero is positive.
|0|=0
>>7470735
positive interger

>>7470163
>4
>8
>16

>>7470163
1+2-3+4-5+6...

Jack's integer.

I just invented it and it's defined as the lowest positive integer not stated by anyone else in this thread.
Abbreviated by a capital J, I state J, 2J, and 3J.

>>7470741
your stupid

>>7470756
>J
>J2
>J3

>>7470756
Why 2J and 3J?

>>7470763
>three answers

durr

>1.00000000000000000001
>guaranteed replies

>>7470741
What does that show?

>>7470775
>integer

>>7470775
Ohyou.jpg

>>7470163
0.999...

>/thread

>>7470789
What do you meme?

>>7470775
>I don't think you understood what you posted my friend.

>>7470735
/sci/ - Science & Reading Comprehension

5 6 7
Are there any key strategies to keep in mind?

>>7470803
>"If one of the numbers you pick is the lowest unique integer in the class..."

It doesn't say whether or not that unique integer is invalid.

>>7470697 is winning.

Is it for a game theory class?

>>7470815
>positive

11
12
1000000000000000000000000

>>7470815
>>>7470697 # is winning
No. Positive integers.

>>7470819
dear aspie.
>"In each of the three boxes below, write a positive integer"

is not connected to

>If one of the numbers you pick is the lowest unique integer.

Cuz I can pick an invalid number and it'll still be one of the lowests.

>winning

>>7470832
>You will immediately cease and not continue to access the site if you are under the age of 18.

>>7470832
>trolling this badly
>trying this hard

>>7470789
so is .999... both an integer and not? i am confuse

>>7470832
>In other words you get three chances to write the smallest positive integer…

Read the whole rules cuckboy.

>>7470841
.999....=1 thus an integer, but it is not winning if someone else write 1

>>7470832
>Cuz I can pick an invalid number and it'll still be one of the lowests.

Yes. But it won't be valid. Is ur mind as well ordered as your set isn't ?

>1
>3
>5

>>7470847
The second sentence doesn't require the first sentence, because all it asks for is the lowest unique integer.

1 because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility (Bystander effect)

4 in case every one else writes 1 2 3

i dont know what the best third integer would be, maybe 5?

Hey guys I'm new here. What's the triple integral meme? Can someone pls explain it?

13.
11.
7.

Nobody picks primes.

>>7470875
C

>>7470882
lolwut?

>>7470875
It's a little… derivative

>>7470875
Basically tripple integrals aren't hard and the joke is that they are the hardest math achievable or something. Welcome to /sci/

6,8,11

>>7470865
1 to make sure you don't win with your 1
2 (the lowest unique integer if everybody else thinks like you)
3 (Just to fuck with you so you go WHAT HOW DID 1 2 3 WIN!)

>>7471208
whats that kid's name again?

>>7472671
Barnum the clown

>>7470163
>(10 pts)
Why hasn't anyone pointed out the absolute insanity of this being an exam question?

>>7473072
You blind? It says 0 points, i.e. extra credit

>thinking that the game can be played if you can see everyone's answers

lol

>>7473085
Whoops, I guess I'm a little blind. Still completely bonkers, and against the rules in any serious institution.

9 10 14
So when does this end?

It doesn't work if you can see the numbers people have already posted, dumbass

>>7470163
0.999...
1.999...
2.999...

69
420
1337

>>7473169
0.999...+ (0.999 + 1.999...- 2.999...+ 3.999...- 4.999.. ...)

>>7473185
>0.999...+ (0.999... + 1.999...- 2.999...+ 3.999...- 4.999... ...)
typo'd

>that you think no one else has chosen

I think the best choices would be:
>1
Just in case everyone thinks it's too obvious.
>n+1
Where n is the number of students in the class.
>2n+1
Same.

What do you guys think?

>>7473254
You're failing to put together a proper model of how stupid some of your fellow students are going to be.

it's probably (2n+1)/2

>>7473113
I guess this guy wins, 10 is the smallest number no one else said.

>>7470759
hehehe.... subtle...

>>7473266
you just made him lose, gg

>>7470163
So no one wants to discuss this problem seriously? There should be a game theoretic solution, however it would be a pain in the ass to calculate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_bid_auction

>>7473262
>integer

>>7473505
sorry, should've specifed some sort of floor/cieling.

>>7470163

How long before you realize that by it's nature, this game cannot be played on a forum. It only works if no one can see anyone else's answers.

>>7473517
I don't think you understand

>in the before, before
>after the after after
>there was a forum post title:
>count to a million
>or was it "last post wins"
no matter
>what mattered was it was an infinite posting thread that encouraged there to always be an anon who wanted

>last post!

>>7473530

But those posts were fun. Actually I know a fix so that this game can be played here.

>>7473575
Is it 21, 31 or 15?

>>7473577

My solution here:

-(-1/12)

>1
You just have to
>4
Some blonde girl will not understand the problem and just put 1, 2, 3
>5
In case someone as smart as you picked 4 too for the same reason

>>7470697
>positive integer

>>7470741
|0!|

>>7472671
Albert Einstein

>>7473262
(2n+1)/(2^(n))

>>7473270
how ? are you the type of nigger that's autistic enough to consider my 10 as a number played in the game ?

>>7470163
This is a fantastic question from a game-theoretic standpoint. Let's break it down.

Assume there are n = 2 people in the class.

In this particular case the optimal placement must be 1, 2, 3; because then, at the very least, you don't lose - and at best, you win.

Now let's suppose n = 3. In such a case, there exists the possibility you lose. For suppose Person A chooses 1, 2, 3 and you choose 1, 2, 3; then, provided that Person B chooses any positive integer > 3, you can lose (once, at the very least).

What we WANT to do is minimize our losses as best as possible for n -> inf. Note that maximum number of losses one can face is n-1 when you choose 1, 2, 3 (where n is the number of people). Whereas the maximum number of losses increases by a factor when some other number, like 4, is chosen - since the 1, 2, 3s as well as any permutations that begin with 2 or 3 also beat you.

Assuming all players are equally rational, the optimal approach would be for everyone to choose 1, 2, 3. This way, they either always win, or rarely don't win (by which one means not lose but not win)

>>7474623
If you restrict the players to selecting pure strategies you get some sad result like that. But if you allow players to use mixed strategies by randomly selecting from multiple triples, then the existence theorem for Nash Equillibria kicks in. In particular it implies that there is some probability distribution of triples, which if used by everyone but you, makes it impossible for you to get a higher expected value than anyone else. That is, there is some self-countering mixed strategy.

>>7474717
Go calculate it explicitly for the three-player case and numbers up to 100 allowed.
I'll wait.

>>7473848

And that blonde will win with her "2"

>>7474623
If you knew anything about game theory you would know that this requires a mixed strategy. In this case, as n approaches infinity, all strategies become equal.

>>7474623
>In this particular case the optimal placement must be 1, 2, 3; because then, at the very least, you don't lose - and at best, you win.
pretty sure this is wrong. the optimal strategy is highly dependent on what assumptions you make on your opponent.

anyone that expects you to play an optimal strategy will run non-optimal strats that beat you 90% of the time which makes them optimal in that situation.

>>7475244

No. For n=2, "1,2,3" is strictly superior to all other strategies.

>>7470756
Mind...blown

>>7475119
There's always more than one blonde