Pular para o conteúdo principal

The escape of blue eyed vampires (answer)

The island of blue eyed vampires (answer)

An initial idea

Each one needs to figure out if him/herself is blue eyed. They assume having blue eyes and see how the others react.

A technical details

There are some variations to formalize this problem using different type of logic: modal logic, temporal logic, Public Announcement Logic and so on.

I believe that those kind of prove are tedious to write and read. For now, I will write a sketch to a prove but I belive the best way to prove is using an algorimthm what basically, it would be an adaptation of DPLL algorithm (Davis–Putnam–Logemann–Loveland) that uses dedutive reasoning and prove by contraction.

Legend

\[\begin{matrix}
BlueEyed(X) :X \text{ is blue eyed.} \\
Leave(X) :X \text{ leaves.} \\
O(y) :y \text{ holds at the next (temporal) state.}
\end{matrix}\]

In this temporal simplified logic, we have a set of state that holds the in- formation of days, \(W = \{d_0, d_1, d_2, d3 \ldots , d_n\}\) and transition \(S : W \rightarrow W = \{(d_0, d_1),(d_1, d_2),(d_2, d_3), \ldots(d_{n−1}, d_n)\}\) (it means, one day is followed by the next). For any subject \(X\), \(X\) want to know if himself can leave. As soon \(X\) realize that he/she can leave he/she will leave.

Now, we want to create a “frame” with the knowledge of a specific subject in a certain point of time. But in our process, one subject will reason about what another is thinking in a recursive way (in the similar process as the minimax algorithm).

As the day follows,

\[\begin{matrix}
d_i & | & O(\phi) \\
d_{i+1} & | & \phi
\end{matrix}\]

In a frame of day \(d_i\) of subject \(X\):

\[BlueEyed(X) \Rightarrow O(Leave(X))\]

But, as the problem was announced no subject leave until \(n^{\text{th}}\) - last day: \[\begin{matrix}
\forall X, i < n, d_i \square_X & | & \neg Leave(X)
\end{matrix}\]

Two vampires example

Let us assume only two vampires: Anna and Maria. Both vampires know

\[\begin{matrix}
BlueEyed(Maria) \vee BlueEyed(Anna)
\end{matrix}\]

Now, let us examine Maria reasoning, \(\square_{\text{Maria}}\)... \[\begin{matrix}
\neg BlueEyed(Maria) & \text{(hypothesis)} \\
BlueEyed(Anna) & \text{(unit propagation)} \\
O(Leave(Anna)) & \text{(prognosis: next day Anna leaves)}
\end{matrix}\]

However, next day, Anna did not leave (what is a contradiction \(\bot\) - hypothesis is false). Therefore,

\[\begin{matrix}
\vDash BlueEyed(Maria) & \text{(law of the excluded middle)}
\end{matrix}\]

Three vampires example

Now let’s do that for 3 vampires: Anna, Maria and John.

Global knowledge

\[\begin{matrix}
BlueEyed(Maria) \vee BlueEyed(Anna) \vee BlueEyed(John) \\
BlueEyed(X) \Rightarrow O(Leave(X))
\end{matrix}\]

At, any time, there are 3 frames…: (frame 1) What Maria is thinking…(frame 2) What Maria thinks what Anna is thinking and (frame 3) What Maria thinks what Anna thinks what John is thiking.

Maria hypothesis is \(\neg BlueEyed(Maria)\). But she also KNOWS (\(\Rightarrow\) she is SURE about that) that Anna would be thinking the same way. So, if Maria hypothesis is right, for Anna, Maria would be not BlueEyed. At same time, Anna would be considering herself as not blue eyed by her own hypothesis. And, applying the same reasoning, Anna would consider what John would be thinking. And that third frame would inheritated not blue eyed for Maria and not blue eyed for Anna. Therefore, John would know that he is the only one with blue eyes and for Anna (according with Maria reasoning) the conclusion would be that John leaves next day.

However, John would not leave. So, Anna hypothesis was wrong (in frame 2). So, in frame 2, Anna concludes that she has blue eyes. But next day Anna does not leave. So Maria concludes that she must have blue eyes.

\[\begin{matrix}
& BlueEyed(Maria) ∨ BlueEyed(Anna) ∨ BlueEyed(John) \\
& BlueEyed(X) \Rightarrow O(Leave(X)) \\
d_0| & \neg BlueEyed(Maria) & \text{(Maria hypothesis)} \\
d_0| & \neg BlueEyed(Anna) & \text{(Anna hypothesis over Maria hypothesis)} \\
d_0| & BlueEyed(John) & \text{(unit propagation)} \\
d_0| & O(Leave(John)) & \text{(prognosis)}
\end{matrix}\]

The next day prognosis…\[\begin{matrix}
d_1| & Leave(John) &
\end{matrix}\]

at \(d_1\)

\[\begin{matrix}
d_1| & \neg Leave(John) \bot \\
d_1| & BlueEyed(Anna) & \text{(law of the excluded middle)} \\
d_1| & O(Leave(Anna)) & \text{(prognosis)}
\end{matrix}\]

So \[\begin{matrix}
d_2 & Leave(Anna) & \text{(prognosis)}
\end{matrix}\]

at \(d_2\)

\[\begin{matrix}
d_2|& \neg Leave(Anna) \bot \\
d_2 & \vDash BlueEyed(Maria)
\end{matrix}\]


Comentários

Postagens mais visitadas deste blog

Pequeno manual do ócio em terras alemãs

  Pequeno manual do ócio em terras alemãs Como Lei alemã favorece aproveitadoras (e alguns aproveitadores que nunca tive o desprazer de conhecer)   Há algumas vias pelas quais pessoas de países em desenvolvimento migram para países como a Alemanha.   Por exemplo, é sabido que países desenvolvidos sofrem de escassez de mão-de-obra qualificada. Por esse motivo, países como a Alemanha dispõe vistos "especiais" para profissionais em demanda. Esse é o conceito do Blaukart (Blue Card) que na Alemanha se destina a profissionais salário anual seja superior a 55 mil euros ou 43 mil no caso de profissionais de áreas em alta demanda. Não há como recrutar essa mão-de-obra sem que a família desses profissionais também possa ser relocada. Então esses profissionais e seus familiares são relocados.   Além de se qualificar para essas vagas em demanda, ou ser parte direta da família qualificada, outra via possível para a imigração para o território alemão é através do matrimôni

Answering: top reasons I hate living in Brazil

Yes, some guys shared a teasing topic about “Top reasons why I hate living in Brazil”: http://www.gringoes.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17615&PN=1&title=top-reasons-i-hate-living-in-brazil What is the point here? The whole text is loaded of cliclés, people that you will hardly find, etc most of time just pissing people off.   I don’t think Brazil is the best country in the world. Also, I don’t think Brazilians don’t make mistakes. Actually we do all the time but most of us really care about our mistakes specially those were pointed out. Some feel like an expatriate, alien in own country. Others reflect about how we could improve. Others  simply don’t accept teases from John Does. So, I’m actually truly bothered with people believing in a bunch of false statements (specially Brazilians) or supporting some cynical arguments disguised “sincere” criticisms . Yes, I make mistakes all the time, and as most of Brazilians, I don’t speak English. However, I will