Deep Climate Change Lesson in Prisoner Puzzle

GasGuzzler wrote:
Seems pretty simple. #3 saw red on #1 and #2 knowing his had to be black. What the deeper lesson here?

StarMan wrote:
Bear with me while I explain.

I put this Prisoner Puzzle in the Fun thread, where almost nobody reads anything. It has had only 12 hits, and no responses. So to make a point on the Climate Debate more powerfully, I am adding the post here, on this Forum that gets orders of magnitude more attention. You will see why after about 100 hits and 10 responses. Now the puzzle:

A prison was overcrowded. Rather than simply release a prisoner, or perhaps more than one, the warden created a challenge. He brought three prisoners into a room and gave them the rules of the challenge. Each prisoner would have a hat put onto his head from behind him. The bag contained three black hats and two red hats. One hat would be drawn randomly by a prison guard and put on each prisoner's head in turn. If a prisoner could tell the warden the color of the hat on his own head, he would immediately be freed. If he guessed, and guessed wrong, he would be executed immediately. (So nobody guesses, preferring not to be executed.)

1st Prisoner: Looks at #2 and #3 and then declares, "I don't know."
2nd Prisoner: Looks at #1 and #3 and then declares, "I don't know."
3rd Prisoner is blind: He declares "I know!"

Does he?
Explain.

The deeper lesson will follow the solution, whether or not anyone can solve it.

Wake wrote:

StarMan wrote:
Bear with me while I explain.

I put this Prisoner Puzzle in the Fun thread, where almost nobody reads anything. It has had only 12 hits, and no responses. So to make a point on the Climate Debate more powerfully, I am adding the post here, on this Forum that gets orders of magnitude more attention. You will see why after about 100 hits and 10 responses. Now the puzzle:

A prison was overcrowded. Rather than simply release a prisoner, or perhaps more than one, the warden created a challenge. He brought three prisoners into a room and gave them the rules of the challenge. Each prisoner would have a hat put onto his head from behind him. The bag contained three black hats and two red hats. One hat would be drawn randomly by a prison guard and put on each prisoner's head in turn. If a prisoner could tell the warden the color of the hat on his own head, he would immediately be freed. If he guessed, and guessed wrong, he would be executed immediately. (So nobody guesses, preferring not to be executed.)

1st Prisoner: Looks at #2 and #3 and then declares, "I don't know."
2nd Prisoner: Looks at #1 and #3 and then declares, "I don't know."
3rd Prisoner is blind: He declares "I know!"

Does he?
Explain.

The deeper lesson will follow the solution, whether or not anyone can solve it.

Prisoner #1 looks. It he saw that both other hats were red he would know that his hat was black. If he saw a black and a red then he would know that it is impossible to tell. If he saw two blacks he would only have two chances in three of picking the right color.

This would be the same for prisoner #2.

Prisoner #3 being blind doesn't even know what color is. So he simply asks the other prisoners.

The greater truth is that having no knowledge at all can give you a better foothold on the truth by merely asking the correct question.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

StarMan wrote:
Bear with me while I explain.

I put this Prisoner Puzzle in the Fun thread, where almost nobody reads anything. It has had only 12 hits, and no responses. So to make a point on the Climate Debate more powerfully, I am adding the post here, on this Forum that gets orders of magnitude more attention. You will see why after about 100 hits and 10 responses. Now the puzzle:

A prison was overcrowded. Rather than simply release a prisoner, or perhaps more than one, the warden created a challenge. He brought three prisoners into a room and gave them the rules of the challenge. Each prisoner would have a hat put onto his head from behind him. The bag contained three black hats and two red hats. One hat would be drawn randomly by a prison guard and put on each prisoner's head in turn. If a prisoner could tell the warden the color of the hat on his own head, he would immediately be freed. If he guessed, and guessed wrong, he would be executed immediately. (So nobody guesses, preferring not to be executed.)

1st Prisoner: Looks at #2 and #3 and then declares, "I don't know."
2nd Prisoner: Looks at #1 and #3 and then declares, "I don't know."
3rd Prisoner is blind: He declares "I know!"

Does he?
Explain.

The deeper lesson will follow the solution, whether or not anyone can solve it.

Prisoner #1 looks. It he saw that both other hats were red he would know that his hat was black. If he saw a black and a red then he would know that it is impossible to tell. If he saw two blacks he would only have two chances in three of picking the right color.

This would be the same for prisoner #2.

Prisoner #3 being blind doesn't even know what color is. So he simply asks the other prisoners.

The greater truth is that having no knowledge at all can give you a better foothold on the truth by merely asking the correct question.

I've already given the answer.

It's an interesting puzzle, and it took me a bit of time to work it out. I certainly wouldn't fault anyone for not being able to figure it out from scratch, but it takes a special kind of stupid to fail to work it out after being given the answer!

Surface Detail wrote:
Yes, #3 knows that his own hat is black.

If #3's hat were red, then the only way that #1 wouldn't know the colour of his own hat would be if #2's hat were black. #2 would have realised this and hence declared that his own hat is black. He didn't though, so #3 correctly deduces that his own hat cannot be red.

I'm not sure what the deeper lesson for climate change is though

StarMan wrote:
Bear with me while I explain.

I put this Prisoner Puzzle in the Fun thread, where almost nobody reads anything. It has had only 12 hits, and no responses. So to make a point on the Climate Debate more powerfully, I am adding the post here, on this Forum that gets orders of magnitude more attention. You will see why after about 100 hits and 10 responses. Now the puzzle:

A prison was overcrowded. Rather than simply release a prisoner, or perhaps more than one, the warden created a challenge. He brought three prisoners into a room and gave them the rules of the challenge. Each prisoner would have a hat put onto his head from behind him. The bag contained three black hats and two red hats. One hat would be drawn randomly by a prison guard and put on each prisoner's head in turn. If a prisoner could tell the warden the color of the hat on his own head, he would immediately be freed. If he guessed, and guessed wrong, he would be executed immediately. (So nobody guesses, preferring not to be executed.)

1st Prisoner: Looks at #2 and #3 and then declares, "I don't know."
2nd Prisoner: Looks at #1 and #3 and then declares, "I don't know."
3rd Prisoner is blind: He declares "I know!"

Does he?
Explain.

The deeper lesson will follow the solution, whether or not anyone can solve it.

StarMan wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Yes, #3 knows that his own hat is black.

If #3's hat were red, then the only way that #1 wouldn't know the colour of his own hat would be if #2's hat were black. #2 would have realised this and hence declared that his own hat is black. He didn't though, so #3 correctly deduces that his own hat cannot be red.

I'm not sure what the deeper lesson for climate change is though

More simply and sequentially put, the 1st prisoner does NOT see 2 red hats on #2 and #3, and says "I don't know."

Then the 2nd prisoner looks and does NOT see 2 red hats on #1 and #3. But IN ADDITION, he realizes that IF #3's hat is red, his must be black. Therefore #2 says "I don't know."

Prisoner #3 recognized from the first two answers that his hat is black and he is set free.

The greater lesson is quite simple. Everybody reading the problem has exactly the same information. Most people cannot solve it despite its beguiling simplicity. This is the lesson for the climate change hoax. Beguiling simplicity staring people in the face, and they refuse to acknowledge that politics and greed and peer pressure trump facts and common sense. Most of us do not feed at the trough of government climate change grants, and so are not moved by such a consideration. Likewise, most of us do not feel the peer pressure of "consensus," almost universal in *academia* - and I use that term loosely, as in a bowel movement.

"Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman

Into the Night wrote:
If #1 sees two red hats, he knows his own is black.
If #1 sees two black hats, his own may be the remaining black hat or a red hat. He doesn't know.
If #1 sees one black and one red, his own hat is either the remaining red hat or a black hat. He doesn't know.
Therefore #1 would ONLY know if the other two were both wearing red hats.

Prisoner #2 knows who #1 is because #1 spoke first.
If #2 sees a black hat on #1 and a black hat on #3, and knows that #1 doesn't know, he may be wearing a red hat or the remaining black hat. He doesn't know. If so, #1 and #3 would be wearing the same color hats (black).
If #2 sees a red hat on #1 and a black hat on #3, and knows that #1 doesn't know, he may be wearing the remaining red hat or a black hat. He doesn't know. If so, #1 and #3 would be wearing different hats.

If #2 sees a black hat on #1 and a red hat on #3, and knows that #1 doesn't know, he may be wearing the remaining red hat or a black hat. He doesn't know. If so, #1 and #3 would be wearing different hats.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
If #1 sees two red hats, he knows his own is black.
If #1 sees two black hats, his own may be the remaining black hat or a red hat. He doesn't know.
If #1 sees one black and one red, his own hat is either the remaining red hat or a black hat. He doesn't know.
Therefore #1 would ONLY know if the other two were both wearing red hats.

Prisoner #2 knows who #1 is because #1 spoke first.
If #2 sees a black hat on #1 and a black hat on #3, and knows that #1 doesn't know, he may be wearing a red hat or the remaining black hat. He doesn't know. If so, #1 and #3 would be wearing the same color hats (black).
If #2 sees a red hat on #1 and a black hat on #3, and knows that #1 doesn't know, he may be wearing the remaining red hat or a black hat. He doesn't know. If so, #1 and #3 would be wearing different hats.

OK up to here.

If #2 sees a black hat on #1 and a red hat on #3, and knows that #1 doesn't know, he may be wearing the remaining red hat or a black hat. He doesn't know. If so, #1 and #3 would be wearing different hats.

No! If #2 sees a black hat on #1 and a red hat on #3, and knows that #1 doesn't know, then he cannot be wearing a red hat himself, otherwise #1 would have seen that both #2 and #3 were wearing red hats and declared his own hat to be black. #2 would then know that his own hat must be black and declare it.

It is the fact that #2 does not declare his own hat to be black that allows #3 to determine that he cannot be wearing a red hat himself.

Surface Detail wrote:

StarMan wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Yes, #3 knows that his own hat is black.

If #3's hat were red, then the only way that #1 wouldn't know the colour of his own hat would be if #2's hat were black. #2 would have realised this and hence declared that his own hat is black. He didn't though, so #3 correctly deduces that his own hat cannot be red.

I'm not sure what the deeper lesson for climate change is though

More simply and sequentially put, the 1st prisoner does NOT see 2 red hats on #2 and #3, and says "I don't know."

Then the 2nd prisoner looks and does NOT see 2 red hats on #1 and #3. But IN ADDITION, he realizes that IF #3's hat is red, his must be black. Therefore #2 says "I don't know."

Prisoner #3 recognized from the first two answers that his hat is black and he is set free.

The greater lesson is quite simple. Everybody reading the problem has exactly the same information. Most people cannot solve it despite its beguiling simplicity. This is the lesson for the climate change hoax. Beguiling simplicity staring people in the face, and they refuse to acknowledge that politics and greed and peer pressure trump facts and common sense. Most of us do not feed at the trough of government climate change grants, and so are not moved by such a consideration. Likewise, most of us do not feel the peer pressure of "consensus," almost universal in *academia* - and I use that term loosely, as in a bowel movement.

"Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman

Well, that's disappointing. No deeper lesson at all, just a bizarre effort to use a cute logic puzzle to justify an insane belief in some sort of massive, worldwide scientific conspiracy.

StarMan wrote:
My bad in replying to Surface Detail.

I regret my error.

StarMan wrote:
I have previously posted this interesting riddle and found that few people can solve it on their own.
Everyone starts with the same information. Many arrive at false conclusions, and make assumptions they should not. Then when discussing the climate change hoax, elsewhere, I posted this riddle and discerned the connection between the riddle and climate change believers, insofar as different conclusions being drawn from the same identical information.

To that I now add another observation, viz., the propensity for a small group to find fault where there is none. In other words anything you can say or observe, some cynical ignoramus can criticize, even if he has to spin and fabricate. Here, things were made up. In my question of does water freeze in a container at 0 C and 1.000 atmosphere, one wag continues to insist (fabricate) that you can "add heat" or "take away heat" through the container WHILE IT REMAINS AT 0 C.
Sorry. That's creative lying. Happens all the time in climate change promotion.

StarMan wrote:
I have previously posted this interesting riddle and found that few people can solve it on their own.
Everyone starts with the same information. Many arrive at false conclusions, and make assumptions they should not. Then when discussing the climate change hoax, elsewhere, I posted this riddle and discerned the connection between the riddle and climate change believers, insofar as different conclusions being drawn from the same identical information.

To that I now add another observation, viz., the propensity for a small group to find fault where there is none. In other words anything you can say or observe, some cynical ignoramus can criticize, even if he has to spin and fabricate. Here, things were made up. In my question of does water freeze in a container at 0 C and 1.000 atmosphere, one wag continues to insist (fabricate) that you can "add heat" or "take away heat" through the container WHILE IT REMAINS AT 0 C.
Sorry. That's creative lying. Happens all the time in climate change promotion.

Wake wrote:

StarMan wrote:
I have previously posted this interesting riddle and found that few people can solve it on their own.
Everyone starts with the same information. Many arrive at false conclusions, and make assumptions they should not. Then when discussing the climate change hoax, elsewhere, I posted this riddle and discerned the connection between the riddle and climate change believers, insofar as different conclusions being drawn from the same identical information.

To that I now add another observation, viz., the propensity for a small group to find fault where there is none. In other words anything you can say or observe, some cynical ignoramus can criticize, even if he has to spin and fabricate. Here, things were made up. In my question of does water freeze in a container at 0 C and 1.000 atmosphere, one wag continues to insist (fabricate) that you can "add heat" or "take away heat" through the container WHILE IT REMAINS AT 0 C.
Sorry. That's creative lying. Happens all the time in climate change promotion.

You're lucky that's all he does. He is perfectly unaware that state changes do not require additional energy changes.

Into the Night wrote:
2) Correct to say that removing more thermal energy from a container at zero degrees takes place without any change in temperature.

StarMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
2) Correct to say that removing more thermal energy from a container at zero degrees takes place without any change in temperature.

To anyone other than Into the Night: You do NOT "remove more thermal energy from a container" without reducing its temperature. The water is 0 C. The container is 0 C. There is stasis. Equilibrium. Look up Triple Point.

StarMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
2) Correct to say that removing more thermal energy from a container at zero degrees takes place without any change in temperature.

To anyone other than Into the Night: You do NOT "remove more thermal energy from a container" without reducing its temperature. The water is 0 C. The container is 0 C. There is stasis. Equilibrium. Look up Triple Point.

Into the Night wrote: It is quite possible to remove thermal energy from the container without changing its temperature. The water within will use its thermal energy to continue heating it. It doesn't change its temperature either.

StarMan wrote:
To return to the subject of this thread:

Dozens of people read the original Prisoner Riddle and virtually NOBODY could solve it. Many errors were made while everyone had exactly the same information.

Why does this happen so often?
1. People don't think through all of the implications and possibilities.
2. When they do, they often try to weasel out of their own errors or ignorance.

Everyone is guilty to some extent, however the Left preponderates when it comes to playing word games, dodging responsibility, and claiming that they are right because they're SO SMART, so shut up. That is the lesson.

Wake wrote:

StarMan wrote:
To return to the subject of this thread:

Dozens of people read the original Prisoner Riddle and virtually NOBODY could solve it. Many errors were made while everyone had exactly the same information.

Why does this happen so often?
1. People don't think through all of the implications and possibilities.
2. When they do, they often try to weasel out of their own errors or ignorance.

Everyone is guilty to some extent, however the Left preponderates when it comes to playing word games, dodging responsibility, and claiming that they are right because they're SO SMART, so shut up. That is the lesson.

I thought that you provided a clear concept. Yet not one of the four seemed either able to answer it or to keep from changing the terms of the problem to prove they are correct.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

StarMan wrote:
To return to the subject of this thread:

Dozens of people read the original Prisoner Riddle and virtually NOBODY could solve it. Many errors were made while everyone had exactly the same information.

Why does this happen so often?
1. People don't think through all of the implications and possibilities.
2. When they do, they often try to weasel out of their own errors or ignorance.

Everyone is guilty to some extent, however the Left preponderates when it comes to playing word games, dodging responsibility, and claiming that they are right because they're SO SMART, so shut up. That is the lesson.

I thought that you provided a clear concept. Yet not one of the four seemed either able to answer it or to keep from changing the terms of the problem to prove they are correct.

Stop lying, Wake. I gave the correct solution in the fourth post of this thread.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

StarMan wrote:
To return to the subject of this thread:

Dozens of people read the original Prisoner Riddle and virtually NOBODY could solve it. Many errors were made while everyone had exactly the same information.

Why does this happen so often?
1. People don't think through all of the implications and possibilities.
2. When they do, they often try to weasel out of their own errors or ignorance.

Everyone is guilty to some extent, however the Left preponderates when it comes to playing word games, dodging responsibility, and claiming that they are right because they're SO SMART, so shut up. That is the lesson.

I thought that you provided a clear concept. Yet not one of the four seemed either able to answer it or to keep from changing the terms of the problem to prove they are correct.

Stop lying, Wake. I gave the correct solution in the fourth post of this thread.

Too bad you can't write an understandable English sentence.

StarMan wrote:
Wake, my Friend, this is why some people simply must be ignored. They are a waste of time.

"Wisdom exceedeth folly as far as light exceedeth darkness."

"Go from the presence of a foolish man."

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

StarMan wrote:
To return to the subject of this thread:

Dozens of people read the original Prisoner Riddle and virtually NOBODY could solve it. Many errors were made while everyone had exactly the same information.

Why does this happen so often?
1. People don't think through all of the implications and possibilities.
2. When they do, they often try to weasel out of their own errors or ignorance.

Everyone is guilty to some extent, however the Left preponderates when it comes to playing word games, dodging responsibility, and claiming that they are right because they're SO SMART, so shut up. That is the lesson.

I thought that you provided a clear concept. Yet not one of the four seemed either able to answer it or to keep from changing the terms of the problem to prove they are correct.

Stop lying, Wake. I gave the correct solution in the fourth post of this thread.

Too bad you can't write an understandable English sentence.

Wake wrote:

StarMan wrote:
Wake, my Friend, this is why some people simply must be ignored. They are a waste of time.

"Wisdom exceedeth folly as far as light exceedeth darkness."

"Go from the presence of a foolish man."

It's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled. Mark Twain

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

StarMan wrote:
Wake, my Friend, this is why some people simply must be ignored. They are a waste of time.

"Wisdom exceedeth folly as far as light exceedeth darkness."

"Go from the presence of a foolish man."

It's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled. Mark Twain

Wise words indeed. It's remarkable how the deniers are happy to swallow hook, line and sinker the unevidenced ramblings they find on the internet that support their delusions while refusing to give credence to peer-reviewed science and the statements of scientific organisations. Denial really is akin to religion.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

StarMan wrote:
Wake, my Friend, this is why some people simply must be ignored. They are a waste of time.

"Wisdom exceedeth folly as far as light exceedeth darkness."

"Go from the presence of a foolish man."

It's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled. Mark Twain

Wise words indeed. It's remarkable how the deniers are happy to swallow hook, line and sinker the unevidenced ramblings they find on the internet that support their delusions while refusing to give credence to peer-reviewed science and the statements of scientific organisations. Denial really is akin to religion.

Science isn't peer review. Science isn't an organization. Science doesn't use consensus.

Science denial is by the Church of Global Warming. They are the ones denying the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

StarMan wrote:
Wake, my Friend, this is why some people simply must be ignored. They are a waste of time.

"Wisdom exceedeth folly as far as light exceedeth darkness."

"Go from the presence of a foolish man."

It's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled. Mark Twain

Wise words indeed. It's remarkable how the deniers are happy to swallow hook, line and sinker the unevidenced ramblings they find on the internet that support their delusions while refusing to give credence to peer-reviewed science and the statements of scientific organisations. Denial really is akin to religion.

Science isn't peer review. Science isn't an organization. Science doesn't use consensus.

Science denial is by the Church of Global Warming. They are the ones denying the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

No paper that has been subject to peer review is likely to be denying the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Surface Detail wrote:
This would be very obvious to the reviewers and the paper would be justifiably rejected as pseudo-scientific waffle.

Surface Detail wrote:
If you think that greenhouse theory violates any scientific laws, that you simply haven't understood greenhouse theory. It doesn't.

Into the Night wrote: Like the surface, any thermal energy in the air is radiated to space as infrared light at various frequencies.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Like the surface, any thermal energy in the air is radiated to space as infrared light at various frequencies.

Let me repeat - do you now agree that the universe is electromagnetic in nature

Wake wrote:
or are you still denying the existence of Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, de Broglie, Compton, Einstein, Schrodinger, Horn, Fermi, Pauli, and the rest of the world's beat and brightest that attended the 1927 Solvay Conference?

Wake wrote:
ANYTHING that radiates at any frequency is electromagnetic in nature.

Wake wrote:
Light is nothing more that higher frequency than Rush Limbaugh on your AM radio.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Like the surface, any thermal energy in the air is radiated to space as infrared light at various frequencies.

Let me repeat - do you now agree that the universe is electromagnetic in nature

No. Why do you keep asking this?

Wake wrote:
or are you still denying the existence of Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, de Broglie, Compton, Einstein, Schrodinger, Horn, Fermi, Pauli, and the rest of the world's beat and brightest that attended the 1927 Solvay Conference?

None of these guys say it is either.

Wake wrote:
ANYTHING that radiates at any frequency is electromagnetic in nature.

WRONG.
Sounds radiates at various frequencies, and is NOT electromagnetic in nature. It is kinetic in nature.

Wake wrote:
Light is nothing more that higher frequency than Rush Limbaugh on your AM radio.

WRONG. Light is all frequencies of electromagnetic energy, including the AM radio band.