Author |
Topic: Discursive Judges (Read 1670 times) |
|
BMAD
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
 |
Discursive Judges
« on: Jun 4th, 2014, 5:05am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
The accused is brought forth in front of the tribunal. The three judges must hear the accusations and the defense to make a determination of innocent or guilt. In this particular case, the accused is found guilty ( C ) if the action in question is defined as illegal (P) and the accused committed the action (Q) or in other words C=P^Q. Judge number 1 found both P and Q true, Judge number 2 found only Q true, and Judge number 3 found only P true. Should the accused be found guilty?
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
Grimbal
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender: 
Posts: 7527
|
|
Re: Discursive Judges
« Reply #1 on: Jun 4th, 2014, 7:11am » |
Quote Modify
|
I'd say if the juges can't aggree on either point, you can't condemn the accused.
Another way to see it is that assuming the juge's opinions reflects the probability of C and P being true, then there is only a 4/9 chance that the accused deserves prison.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
dudiobugtron
Uberpuzzler
Posts: 735
|
|
Re: Discursive Judges
« Reply #2 on: Jun 4th, 2014, 1:23pm » |
Quote Modify
|
If Judge 2 found 'only Q true', does that mean that she found P to be not true? (Similarly for Judge 3 - did he find Q to be not true?)
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
BMAD
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
|
Re: Discursive Judges
« Reply #3 on: Jun 4th, 2014, 1:26pm » |
Quote Modify
|
If Judge 2 found 'only Q true', does that mean that she found P to be not true? (Similarly for Judge 3 - did he find Q to be not true?)
Yes.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
dudiobugtron
Uberpuzzler
Posts: 735
|
|
Re: Discursive Judges
« Reply #4 on: Jun 4th, 2014, 1:47pm » |
Quote Modify
|
In my country's legal system, the defendant's guilt needs to be established 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I think we should assume that the judges are all reasonable, and therefore the fact that Judge 3 thinks the defendant did not commit the action means that there is reasonable doubt. Therefore, even if all judges agreed P were true, I think the defendant should go free.
Of course, the judges have access to more information than we do, so perhaps they are better placed to decide whether Judge 3's doubt is 'reasonable'.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
BMAD
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
|
Re: Discursive Judges
« Reply #5 on: Jun 4th, 2014, 1:52pm » |
Quote Modify
|
In your country do you use 1 judge or 3?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
dudiobugtron
Uberpuzzler
Posts: 735
|
|
Re: Discursive Judges
« Reply #6 on: Jun 4th, 2014, 1:59pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 4th, 2014, 1:52pm, BMAD wrote:| In your country do you use 1 judge or 3? |
|
Usually 1 judge per case in the smaller courts, but once you get up to higher courts, the number of judges per case increases. I think the supreme court has 5 who hear each case.
-----------------------
I think I see what you are getting at, though. You have 2/3 judges who think P is true, so by that vote the court should find P true. You also have 2/3 judges who find Q true, so by that vote the court should find Q true. However, you only have 1/3 judges who think C is true. So the court should find C false. But that's a contradiction!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
BMAD
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
|
Re: Discursive Judges
« Reply #7 on: Jun 4th, 2014, 2:05pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Yes. This is a famous paradox problem in game theory.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
    
Gender:
Posts: 2873
|
|
Re: Discursive Judges
« Reply #8 on: Jun 5th, 2014, 2:45am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 4th, 2014, 2:05pm, BMAD wrote:| Yes. This is a famous paradox problem in game theory. |
|
It's as much a paradox as when I get my (fully functional and correctly operating) calculator, show that the screen displays "2", press "=" without altering the display (showing that that is indeed the current running total) and then press "*", "2", and "=" in that order, making the number displayed change to "5"
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
dudiobugtron
Uberpuzzler
Posts: 735
|
|
Re: Discursive Judges
« Reply #9 on: Jun 5th, 2014, 3:22am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 5th, 2014, 2:45am, rmsgrey wrote:
It's as much a paradox as when I get my (fully functional and correctly operating) calculator, show that the screen displays "2", press "=" without altering the display (showing that that is indeed the current running total) and then press "*", "2", and "=" in that order, making the number displayed change to "5" |
|
I don't see yet how that relates to the OP, but it seems like an interesting puzzle in its own right! Perhaps it deserves its own thread?
Also, does the * button on your calculator correspond to the 'multiply' operation?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
rloginunix
Uberpuzzler
Posts: 1029
|
|
Re: Discursive Judges
« Reply #10 on: Jun 7th, 2014, 2:14pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 5th, 2014, 2:45am, rmsgrey wrote:
I get my (fully functional and correctly operating) calculator, show that the screen displays "2", press "=" without altering the display (showing that that is indeed the current running total) and then press "*", "2", and "=" in that order, making the number displayed change to "5" |
|
Don't want to pollute the current topic so may be it should be spawned into its own thread.
I remember implementing in C (and Java) Dijkstra's Shunting Yard algorithm for numeric arithmetic and string Boolean expressions. Two phases. Phase 1 - parse the arbitrarily parenthesised input infix expression into either postfix or prefix form. Phase 2 - "calculate" the result: if the current item is an operand then push it onto the stack otherwise (it's an operator) pop the required number of operands off the stack (1 for unary, 2 for binary), "do" the operator, push the result back onto the stack.
By the end of this process there should be only one item left on the stack - the "answer". A number for an arithmetic or "true" or "false" value for a Boolean string expression. Any other case means an error somewhere.
So what we have here is 2 "displayed": int 2 at the top of the operands stack. "=" means do the above processing: int 2 at the top of the stack still. "*" I take means multiply - a binary operator. "2" is pushed onto the operands stack. "=" again do the processing. Pop two ints off the stack, 2 and 2, multiply, 4. Push 4 back onto the stack. End. Display 4. So by this account the answer should be 4, not 5.
Any other calculator's capabilities involved here?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2873
|
|
Re: Discursive Judges
« Reply #11 on: Jun 9th, 2014, 7:37am » |
Quote Modify
|
The calculator allows me to set how many digits its display rounds to, while still using the most exact values in calculation - so I enter 2.4 into the calculator, set it to round to either 1sf or 0dp depending on the machine's precise capabilities, show you the display reading "2", double it to 4.8, which displays as "5" (if the calculator truncates rather than rounding, start with 2.6 rather than 2.4)
The link with this puzzle's apparent paradox is that both rely on suppressing precision - in the calculator's case, it's rounding the hidden digits; for the judges, it's rounding the 2/3 majority opinions up to appear unanimous.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print