Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

BlueHorseshoe

Puzzles for Traders

Recommended Posts

I thought that I would post a series of coffee-break puzzles, partly because they're fun, but also because they can lead to a better understanding of the statistical processes that underlie the assumptions we often make when evaluating trading approaches . . .

 

A city has a large hospital and a small hospital. Each has a maternity ward. Yesterday, 60% of the births at one of these hospitals were boys.

 

Which hospital is this more likely to be?

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

The conclusion that it is the small hospital is incorrect. We simply don't know. The argument that it is determined by the sample size, doesn't hold weight, since we don't know what the sample size is for either. One hospital is larger, but that doesn't mean its maternity ward is larger. It also doesn't mean it had a larger sample of births on that day. That's a false assumption. Also there seems to be a hidden assumption that births are equally likely to be boys as girls. This too is not correct, but is at least closer to the truth than the sample size point.

 

So given the information stated, they are equally likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other possible answers to pattuca's riddle (and yes it should have been capitalised, otherwise it's just poorly phrased):

 

Answer: He didn't (seems valid enough to me)

 

Another answer: frist he crossed the bridge one way, then he turned and went over it again, and on the second trip he was technically both crossing and going around the bridge.

 

There is often more than one valid answer. It may not be the answer the riddler had in mind, but it can still be 'correct'.

 

 

Here's a maths puzzle.

 

5 brothers have inheirted 100 million dollars to split up amongst themselves. The brothers are ranked eldest to youngest and it is always the eldest brother who decides how to divide up the inheritance. However, the brothers are democratic: if the oldest brother does not get at least 50% of the vote (including himself), then he is killed and the process repeats itself with the next oldest brother. The brothers are all completely rational (logical) and know that their brothers are too.

 

How does the oldest brother divide up the inheritance to maximise the amount he keeps for himself, i.e. what does he offer to the other brothers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Other possible answers to pattuca's riddle (and yes it should have been capitalised, otherwise it's just poorly phrased):

 

Answer: He didn't (seems valid enough to me)

 

Another answer: frist he crossed the bridge one way, then he turned and went over it again, and on the second trip he was technically both crossing and going around the bridge.

 

There is often more than one valid answer. It may not be the answer the riddler had in mind, but it can still be 'correct'.

 

 

Here's a maths puzzle.

 

5 brothers have inheirted 100 million dollars to split up amongst themselves. The brothers are ranked eldest to youngest and it is always the eldest brother who decides how to divide up the inheritance. However, the brothers are democratic: if the oldest brother does not get at least 50% of the vote (including himself), then he is killed and the process repeats itself with the next oldest brother. The brothers are all completely rational (logical) and know that their brothers are too.

 

How does the oldest brother divide up the inheritance to maximise the amount he keeps for himself, i.e. what does he offer to the other brothers?

 

 

( I have a feeling this is a factorial question but I'm feeling lazy)

 

if they are all rational in the economic sense, then they are self serving. Everyone would vote to kill the oldest for a larger share, until only the two youngest brothers are left and they split it 50m/50m

 

but if they were smart the three eldest brothers would realize this, and sacrifice some of their gains to keep their lives.

 

these arnt exact because im too lazy to do the math during the trading day but

 

1. the oldest would take around 7.5m and divide the rest up roughly

2 would receive around 12.5m

3 would receive around 20m

4 would receive around 30m

5 would receive around 30m (also 5 would receive the same amount as 4, because in the greedy situation where the 3 eldest are killed, the youngest doesn't have greater than 50% of the vote, 4 would except no less than 5).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 brothers have inheirted 100 million dollars to split up amongst themselves. The brothers are ranked eldest to youngest and it is always the eldest brother who decides how to divide up the inheritance. However, the brothers are democratic: if the oldest brother does not get at least 50% of the vote (including himself), then he is killed and the process repeats itself with the next oldest brother. The brothers are all completely rational (logical) and know that their brothers are too.

 

How does the oldest brother divide up the inheritance to maximise the amount he keeps for himself, i.e. what does he offer to the other brothers?

 

apart from killing each other to keep it all....

 

As the older brother only needs to keep 2 other brothers on side to keep > 50% of the vote.

He can split the inheritance 3 ways to maximise his amount.

3 brothers are happy with $33 mil each , the other 2 have to accept the democratic process.

Basically on this rationale if it was to be split evenly at 20mil each....all you need to do is offer at least two of the brothers a little bit more than that share to get them onside...so it could be as little as 21each to 2 other brothers, screw 2 brothers who have to accept it and keep the remaining 100-(2x21)=$58mil for himself.

 

Too bad ideas of justice and greed get in the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
apart from killing each other to keep it all....

 

As the older brother only needs to keep 2 other brothers on side to keep > 50% of the vote.

He can split the inheritance 3 ways to maximise his amount.

3 brothers are happy with $33 mil each , the other 2 have to accept the democratic process.

Basically on this rationale if it was to be split evenly at 20mil each....all you need to do is offer at least two of the brothers a little bit more than that share to get them onside...so it could be as little as 21each to 2 other brothers, screw 2 brothers who have to accept it and keep the remaining 100-(2x21)=$58mil for himself.

 

Too bad ideas of justice and greed get in the way.

 

Again, good ideas. Not the right answer though. But on the right track

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The conclusion that it is the small hospital is incorrect.

 

Hi Seeker,

 

Your points are all quite correct: we can't be certain, and our best guess could involve flawed assumptions.

 

Ignoring the inadequacies of the way I stated the question though, hopefully the point about sample size remains valid.

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Seeker,

 

Your points are all quite correct: we can't be certain, and our best guess could involve flawed assumptions.

 

Ignoring the inadequacies of the way I stated the question though, hopefully the point about sample size remains valid.

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

 

Yes, of course, assuming 50% prob male to female births, it's slightly more likely to be the smaller sample size.

 

Let me know if you want the answer to the 5 brother problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the answer is that:

 

 

 

......

 

 

 

The eldest brother gives brothers 3 and 5, the minimum possible, i.e. if the minimum unit is 1 dollar, he gives them 1 dollar each (if minimum is one cent, he gives them one cent each) and keeps the rest for himself.

 

The reason is: Following from traderunner's thought, you work backwards. If there are two brothers, the elder of the two keeps all the money, because he will get 50% of the vote, and so he walks away with all the money. Extending this to 3 brothers, the youngest of all knows that if he votes against the eldest brothers plan, and the eldest brother loses, then he will walk away with nothing. So he'll accept anything greater than 0 (1 cent, one dollar for example). Brother 3 knows this, so he can offer the one cent to that brother and nothing to the brother in between. This logic works back all the way to the first of 5 brothers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess pure rationality does not mix with the ideas of justice and fairness.....simply a fear of death v money. :roll eyes:

No wonder we have financial crisisisiesiesiiisssss

 

also makes you wonder if the early innovators of inheritance - give it all to the first born male (usually the most aggressive sex) made a lot of sense.

Edited by SIUYA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.