SMackinnon

Enjoyed the post with plenty of great information contained inside, but felt the conclusion was either something that went over my head or was too obvious to state (for the likely reader of this post). Of course, Haskell can't prove that your code satisfies the necessary laws to call some class a functor. I thought we were going to get something a bit more insightful given the title of the post. However, as I said I did really enjoy the other content in the blog and maybe it could have just worked to a different conclusion with an alternative title.

Just wanted to say that I appreciated this detailed comment and your replies in the threads beneath it. Cheers.

I was confused as well. I don't recall seeing this the first time I read the article, but on the second time through, they include this: "Our research reveals that Plimpton 322 describes the shapes of right-angle triangles using a novel kind of trigonometry based on ratios, not angles and circles. It is a fascinating mathematical work that demonstrates undoubted genius." Which is probably where the "more accurate" statement comes from.

I just thought about what strategies they could actually take without being able to communicate information or use the outcome of the others flip as an input to their decision. There are only a few things you could do- guess either heads or tails every time, guess your roll, or guess the opposite.

Then I realized if one took the "guess same" strategy and the other took the "guess opposite" strategy that would cover the bases.

Yeah, added a little spoiler tag.

Spoiler:

Bob always chooses the same as his flip, Alice always chooses the opposite of her flip.

  B A
  H H - Bob chooses heads, Win
  H T - Alice chooses heads, Win
  T H - Alice chooses tails, Win
  T T - Bob chooses tails, Win