News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Steve Ballmer's incorrect binary search interview question by kibwen on Tuesday September 03, 2024 @10:06AM (#41435104)
The ultimate conclusion of which is likely that both parties will decay to picking the secret value/first guess randomly (although I'm not sure if the optimal distribution is perfectly flat?), which is also something that we can model.
Re:Steve Ballmer's incorrect binary search interview question by gcanyon on Tuesday September 03, 2024 @11:44AM (#41436064)
Seems like the distribution definitely won’t be flat since the guesser can randomly choose any of the numbers from 37 to 64 as a first guess without losing anything on the large side, so Ballmer starting with any of those increases his chance of having to pay out the $5. Likewise for other numbers there are nuances to what can be guessed.
Re:Steve Ballmer's incorrect binary search interview question by alain94040 on Wednesday September 04, 2024 @08:16PM (#41452207)
But if you assume that the opponent knows that they shouldn't pick between 37-64, doesn't that change your odds?

The game theory here is similar to another quiz "Guess 1/3 of the average".

You are really trying to guess how deep the other has thought about the problem, so you can tell which strategy they settled on, and then you adapt your strategy based on that. Of course, it's a loop.

Re:Steve Ballmer's incorrect binary search interview question by gcanyon on Thursday September 05, 2024 @04:45PM (#41460257)
Yep, definitely not just what I said. I was saying that guaranteed it won't work out to an even distribution, not what the distribution would be.