0 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Gurkenglas · 2020-12-06T15:26:51.582Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Couldn't you simply ask the usual questions, but each mention of themselves is replaced by "a hypothetical God whose behavior is either to always tell the truth, to always lie, or to always give a random answer, and whose behavior is not identical to either of the other Gods"?

comment by Measure · 2020-12-04T22:23:48.218Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Under the classical rules, if you ask either True or False "Would you say 'ja' if asked <question>?", then they will say 'ja' if the answer to <question> is 'yes'.

Under the modified rules, this isn't allowed, so we have to instead ask "Would one of the other two gods that is not Random say 'ja' if asked <question>?" This ends up being reversed from above, since you're dealing with True talking about False or vice versa and so you're guaranteed a single-negative rather than a double-negative or non-negative. However, the principal remains that you don't care which word has which meaning or which god you ask as long as it's not Random.

Let (<god>, <question>) mean: Ask <god> "Would one of the other two gods that is not Random say 'ja' if asked <question>?" and assume that 'da' means 'yes' and 'ja' means 'no'.

(god_A, "Is god_C Random?") If 'yes', then god_B is not Random. If 'no', then god_C is not Random.

Let god_NR be whichever of god_B and god_C we just determined is not Random, and let god_MR be the other one.

(god_NR, "Is god_A Random?") If 'yes', then god_A is Random. If 'no', then god_MR is Random.

Let god_NR2 be whichever of god_A and god_MR we didn't just determine is Random.

(god_NR, "Is god_NR2 False?") If 'yes', then god_NR is True and god_NR2 is False. If 'no', then god_NR is False and god_NR2 is True.

Replies from: Measure

↑ comment by Measure · 2020-12-04T22:44:02.987Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

This is just the classical solution with a slightly different hypothetical phrasing.

Replies from: ipike

↑ comment by nomiddlename (ipike) · 2020-12-06T02:38:46.494Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Well done! I had an answer which differs more than the classical answer and wanted to modify the riddle to force my answer but it looks like I I failed at that.

My answer still uses the double negative trick to avoid the need to know what "ja" and "da" mean and goes as follows.
1-Ask god A: "If I asked "is the sky is blue?" to gods b and c is b more likely to tell the truth than c?" Both True and False will say that their non random counterpart is more likely to lie so a negative response means either god A or C is Random and rules out god B. A positive response rules out god C.

2-Ask the god who has been ruled out as being random the same question about the other two gods to figure out which is Random. 

3-Ask one of the non Random gods a question like "is the sky blue?"

I really liked this answer now I just got to figure out how to change the riddle to force it

Replies from: Measure

↑ comment by Measure · 2020-12-06T13:24:49.723Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Consider spoiler-tagging your solution.

One of the properties of the classical solution is that it works even if the Random god is actually an intelligent adversary trying to thwart your strategy. Anything that uses "more likely" language won't be guaranteed to work in that case.

Maybe something like not allowing hypothetical question that you wouldn't be allowed to actually ask would work to force your solution. (So you couldn't ask "would god_X say 'blah' if asked 'are you Random?'", since you couldn't actually ask god_X that question.)

Replies from: ipike

↑ comment by nomiddlename (ipike) · 2020-12-10T01:58:51.173Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Good point about the classical solution having an advantage. Also, how do you spoiler tag?

Replies from: habryka4, Measure

↑ comment by habryka (habryka4) · 2020-12-11T02:51:49.147Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

If you're using the normal editor, just type >! followed by a space, and a spoiler box should show up.

↑ comment by Measure · 2020-12-10T19:52:51.495Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

If you're using markdown, then

:::spoiler
Hidden text here.
:::

yields

Hidden text here.

Replies from: ipike

↑ comment by nomiddlename (ipike) · 2020-12-10T23:25:40.689Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Thanks. I just looked into this and am reading about what "markdown" is.

Replies from: Measure

↑ comment by Measure · 2020-12-11T02:49:22.935Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Be aware that there is a different (default?) editor that has a different syntax. There's a way to switch between them in your account settings.

comment by Measure · 2020-12-03T20:07:22.066Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

What does it mean for a question to be "about" a particular god?

If I can't ask "Are you True?", can I ask "Is neither other god True?"

If I'm talking to True (but I don't know that), can I ask something like "Would True say 'ja' to <question>?", or does that count as a question about the god I'm talking to?

Replies from: ipike

↑ comment by nomiddlename (ipike) · 2020-12-03T23:53:53.580Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

1-You can ask "Is neither other god True."

2-Good point I should have been more clear - You can only ask questions that are definitively not about the god you are talking to. I'll try to edit the post accordingly.