You can do it in 5 steps without markings.
I like the cut of your Mom's jib. Who has all day to figure out simple stuff? What are we decanting here that eyeballing will be so inferior a method to these mysterious containers whose volumes I have to take your word on anyway?
Yes, I stated the problem badly.
Two measuring vessels.
It is specified that a vessel can be filled, if it is not filled, or emptied. No other action is possible, which rules out using marks even if there were any.
In the game, the vessles resembled graduated cylinders, that was nice as it was easy to see how much was in a partially filled vessel. But brink the fluid over to add one unit it will fill it, no matter.
By pouring between them and emptying
The AI read more into this, and missed your wise ass clever answer!
a7
1 Like
"If it's not fun, it's not worth doing"
- Sun Tzu (maybe he said that, you don't know 
)
The jugs are cylindrical. Fill the 9 litre jug. Pour 4 litres into the other jug. Tip the 4 litre jug until the hoizontal surface of water meets the bottom lip of the tilted jug. That leaves 2 litres in the 4 litre jug. Add it to the 5 litres in the 9 litre jug. The ecological bonus with this solution is you wasted only 2 litres.
4 Likes
I know y'all are being deliberately obtuse. There were always one or two of you in school; I may have at times even been such a person.
The vessels are neither "measuring vessels" nor necessarily any shape that would allow measuring anything other than the stated capacity.
It is a common assumption, stated as part of these puzzles, that the jugs in the puzzle are irregularly shaped and unmarked, so that it is impossible to accurately measure any quantity of water that does not completely fill a jug. Other assumptions of these problems may include that no water can be spilled, and that each step pouring water from a source jug to a destination jug stops when either the source jug is empty or the destination jug is full, whichever happens first.
The puzzle in the game I was playing was not like IRL, the actions afforded were indeed only filling, or filling up, and emptying. Thus clever solutions were nothing it had to bark about, they were simply impossible.
This would obvsly be a very dangerous bar room bet, and fraught in any real test with vessels and liquid.
And I wonder about this as a test in a job interview. Would cleverness be appreciated as a sign of intelligence? The AI didn't think "outside the vessel" and come up with anything but what the actual puzzle allows. Or would and ability to read a spec and code to it, so to speak, be seen as positive?
Next: The Minty Hall problem. There's probably been as much sense as nonsense about it printed on the internets, an AI would have every right and wrong analysis available and this is the problem with the AI, it has no smirk, it has no clue, it knows nothing.
a7
I have heard of the Monty Hall problem, but not this one. I wonder what ChatGPT has to say about it ?
3 Likes
A brick wall consists of bricks and mortar, what is the mortar for?
I asked it just last night and it got it right.
There’s lots of long explanations of the right answers of the MHP, but the wrong answers are often not much more than Ill formed assertions that inspire the long explanations of the right answer and detail how the wrong answer is wrong.
Are you saying that ChatGPT knows what the Minty Hall problem is ?
1 Like
me> explain what the Minty Hall problem is
chatgpt> The Monty Hall problem is a probability puzzle named after the host of the television game show "Let's Make a Deal," Monty Hall. In the problem, a contestant is presented with three doors. Behind one door is a valuable prize, while the other two doors hide less desirable prizes.
The contestant chooses one door, and then Monty Hall, who knows what is behind each door, opens one of the remaining two doors to reveal a less desirable prize. The contestant is then given the option to stick with their original choice or switch to the other unopened door.
The puzzle is whether it is to the contestant's advantage to switch doors or stick with their initial choice. The counterintuitive answer is that the contestant should always switch doors, as doing so gives them a higher probability of winning the valuable prize.
it does correct the name
Surely what it ought to have said was that there was no such thing as the Minty Hall problem but that it had an explanation of the similarly named Monty Hall problem if that would help
3 Likes
Indeed, changing your choice also changes the odds of winning from 1:3 to 1:2. Originally, there is a one in three chance of selecting the correct door. The show master opening one of the doors he knows to be "empty" does not change the odds from 1:3. However, if the contestant now changes to select one of the unopened doors, he/she now has a one in two chance of selecting the winning door.
I had a brief moment of actual understanding when it was described with 100 doors, pick one and Mknty opens 98 of the 99 others.
Very brief. Thing is slippery.
When you first picked a door, you had 1/100 chance of getting it right. With 98 eliminated, you are basically asked to pick again, now between two doors, where you have 1/2 a chance.
So you'd have to think you were very lucky not to realize that the other door is the more likely? Argh.
It would make a nice little hand-held puzzle/demo thing. Maybe a continuously running execution, and a switch for picking the strategy.
a7
I do not think it is ChatGPT's problem. Try on Google "Minty Hall problem" -> " Did you mean: Monty Hall problem".
EDIT: George J. Minty, right?
Am I right in saying that if a door to a known empty box is opened then the chances of one of the remaining two holding a prize is now 2 to 1 ?
Yes.
Someone walking in at that point could be told that there is a prize behind one of two doors, 1/2 by 1/2.
What the earlier participant knew and can exploit is that the door she picked first had a 1/3 probability of being correct; nothing changes that, as the extreme examlke of 100 doors is meant to make clear.
Since nothing changed the 1/3 chance, the early participant benefits and can deduce that the other door must be the one with 2/3 probability.
Or in the case of 100 doors, 99 percent it's gonna be the door not chosen.
a7
Indeed. More or less as Alto777 has said. After the first door has been opened, it is a very simple case of having a choice between 2 doors. So, by changing, the contestant is, instead of having a 1:3 chance, now has a 1:2 chance of the big prize.
Put another way, if the contestant does not change, he/she is not benefitting from the later knowledge that one of the doors can be ruled out as a choice.
it is not correct to say that changing your choice changes the odds of winning from 1:3 to 1:2 in the Monty Hall problem
Initially, you have a 1/3 chance of picking the car and a 2/3 chance of picking a goat. When the host, who knows what is behind each door, opens one of the remaining two doors to reveal a goat, the probability that the car is behind the door you initially chose remains 1/3. However, the probability that the car is behind the other unopened door increases to 2/3. Therefore, switching doors increases your chances of winning from 1/3 to 2/3
1 Like
So at that point we know that the prize is behind one of the two remaining doors and that the chance of choosing the correct one is 1 in 2
Is that correct ?