One player would put something inside the box and the second player would have to identify it without looking inside the box. Instead, he could fire "rays" into the box and see where they came out of the box. They could be fired into all six faces of the box. In the computer version, each side was divided into a 12x12 grid, and the ray could be fired in thru any of these 144 locations, would emerge from another location after being deflected or otherwise by the object. A direct hit reflects the ray back along the course it came in from. Glancing contact deflects it thru 90 degrees and out.
By firing enough rays, the player could identify the object in the box. So, each ray provides some position information about the object.
The computer version was more challenging because the object in the box could be up to 7 separate ATOMS instead of a finite object, scattered defusely in the box. Then, the rays would get some interesting internal deflections to fool the opponent.
Nevertheless, if enough rays are fired in, the exact position of all the atoms can be identified with absolute certainty.
EXAMPLE 2: Stand ten tuning forks of various sizes in a cardboard box, close the box and challenge someone to identifiy what is in the box. If it were a very determined and persistent person, he/she would eventually get around to trying a wide range of sound frequencies - until all the forks had resonated in turn. He/she did get the answer, so you can know a great deal about what is inside a "Black Box" without actually looking inside it.
EXAMPLE 3: A man, who has never played chess in his life, challenges the top two Chess players in the world to a series of games in which he will play them simultaneously, in adjoining rooms, promising a good game - would even beat them sometimes. They accepted the challenge.
The rule for each pair of simultaneous games, is that the challenger makes the first move in one of the games, and one of the champs makes the first move in the other game.
After 10 pairs of games :
Result: WON 3 LOST 3 DRAW 14.
Not bad for someone who has never played chess in his life. All he did was wait for the first Champ to start the game and make the same move to start the other game; then wait for that Champ's move, repeating it in the other game, etc.
It doesn't matter how complicated a problem is, you can sometimes beat it with LOGIC.
[ 28. July 2003, 15:15: Message edited by: Timokay ]
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|OK, shoot.||MRC_Hans||Research and the Scientific Validity of Homeopathy||199||4th December 2003 07:47 AM|
|Clusters as storage medium?||MRC_Hans||Homeopathy Discussion||120||13th November 2003 07:37 PM|
|some logic 2||Timokay||Research and the Scientific Validity of Homeopathy||0||27th July 2003 02:27 PM|
|Paul Herscu,who knows more?||Hans Weitbrecht||Homeopathy Discussion||180||12th December 2002 04:06 PM|
|to all Parents using this site||kevin seymour||Homeopathy Discussion||20||3rd January 2000 09:50 PM|