Solution to Nick's Mathematical Puzzle 3. Two Logicians

The puzzle itself is on Nick's website.

I spend the whole night working on the solution. It is in form of a Python code. I must now sleep.



# See http://www.qbyte.org/puzzles/puzzle01.html 3. Two Logicians

solutions = []

for x in range(2, 50): # Generate the number matrix, list of tuplets
    for y in range (x+1, 100-x):
        solutions.append((x, y, x+y, x*y))

all_numbers = solutions

print
print "There are %4d possible combinations." % len(solutions)

# Extract sums (x+y) and products (xy) from the tuples
sums, products = [], [] 
for i in solutions:
    sums.append(i[2])
    products.append(i[3])

m_uniques, m_duplicates = [], [] 
a_uniques, a_duplicates = [], [] 

for i in solutions:
    # Eval tuples where the products are unique in regard to x and y.
    if sums.count(i[2]) > 1: a_duplicates.append(i)
    else: a_uniques.append(i)

    # Eval tuples with respect to sums
    if products.count(i[3]) > 1 : m_duplicates.append(i)
    else: m_uniques.append(i)

print "          %4d unique products (xy)." % len(m_uniques)
print "          %4d duplicate products. Two or more tuples " % \
      len(m_duplicates) + "have the same products."   
print "          %4d unique sums (x+y)." % len(a_uniques)
print "          %4d duplicate sums. Two or more tuples have " % \
      len(a_duplicates) + "the same sums."   

# 1. The solutions do not contain m_uniques. P does not know the 
# combination, because of duplicity.
solutions = set(solutions) - set(m_uniques) # equals m_duplicates 
print "1. Removal of m_uniques: %d" % len(solutions)

# 2. S does not have a sum where the same sum occurs in a m_unique. 
# Otherwise S would be unsure, whether P knows the solution.
sums_m_unique = set()
for i in m_uniques: sums_m_unique.add(i[2])
for i in solutions.copy(): 
    if i[2] in sums_m_unique: solutions.remove(i)

# Only solutions are left, that are m_duplicates, and all sums occur 
# only in duplicates.
print "2. Removes tuples with sums that occur in m_uniques: %d" % \
    len(solutions)

table = list()
for i in solutions:
    table.append((i[2], i[0], i[1], i[3]))

# 3. P can determine the tuple, that means it is m_unique in the 
# reduced solution set.

# Extract products (xy) from the tuples of the reduced solution set
products = [] 
for i in solutions:
    products.append(i[3])

for i in solutions.copy():
    # Eval tuples with unique products (xy)
    if products.count(i[3]) > 1: solutions.remove(i)

print "3. Eval m_uniques in the reduced solution set: %d" % \
    len(solutions)

# 4. S can determin the tuple, meaning the set must be a_unique

# Extract sums (x+y) from the tuples of the reduced solution set
sums = [] 
for i in solutions:
    sums.append(i[2])

for i in solutions.copy():
    # Eval tuples with unique sums (x+y)
    if sums.count(i[2]) > 1: solutions.remove(i)

print "4. Eval a_uniques in the reduced solution set: %d" % \
    len(solutions)
print " x  y : x+y   xy" 
for i in sorted(solutions):
    print "%2d %2d : %3d %4d" % i


"""
print "x+y:  x  y |   xy > tuples containing xy" 
for i in sorted(table):
    tuples = list()
    for j in all_numbers:
        if i[3] == j[3]: tuples.append(j)  
    print "%3d: %2d %2d | %4d > " % i + str(tuples) 
"""

"""
for i in all_numbers:
    if i[3] == 18 or i[2] == 9 or i[2] == 11 : 
        print str(i) + " >" ,
        if i in m_uniques: print " m_unique ",
        if i in a_uniques: print " a_unique ",
        print
"""

Mind and brain

What is the mind? A collection of thoughts, sensory impressions and psychological states.

It is a non-physical entity independent of the brain to the same extent as numbers and ideas are not dependent on their physical representation.

Mind experiment: If a mind is represented by a certain configuration of the brain, then two brains with the same configuration would represent the same mind. The two brains are identifiable as two distinct entities, the mind is the same and independent of any of both.

If a mind is independent of any given brain, then it is also independent of any brain at all.

Indecisive moral situations

According to The Independent, Amartya Sen argues, using a thought experiment, that "justice is not a monolithic ideal but a pluralistic notion with many dimensions."

Take three kids and a flute. Anne says the flute should be given to her because she is the only one who knows how to play it. Bob says the flute should be handed to him as he is so poor he has no toys to play with. Carla says the flute is hers because it is the fruit of her own labour. How do we decide between these three legitimate claims?

The fact that it is impossible to decide what is just in a single situation is not equivalent to absense of a moral system that can "resolve [disputes] in a universally accepted just manner". Maybe morality is non-deterministic in some situations

There are two ways how a non-deterministic problem becomes deterministic. 

a) Finer details: 

Let's say Anne is so rich, she can afford a new flute anyway. Bob is an amazing salesman and can buy lots of toys that he will share with his friends in exchange for the flute. And Carla's labour consists of snipping her finger to activate the magical flute-making machine that she inherited from her great aunt. 

b) Different proportion:

Anne's flute play delights her five-member family. Bob will share the flute with his twenty siblings and Carla has no dependant or charity that will benefit from the flute. 

The trolley problem may have a totally different dimension with different numbers:

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?

Let's say, instead of five people, one person or six billion people are tied to the track. How would you choose?

NB: You may realise that this post is not a rebuttal of Amartya Sen. 

The Lament of a Hunter-Gatherer against Agriculturists

Translated into English.

Alas, gone are the days when the game roamed the wilderness and trees filled the land. Ages have passed since I was born, and ages of pain and suffering are inflicted upon Earth by the farmers and stock-breeders. They burnt the forests that I loved so dearly as a child to make land for weeds they have tamed and animals they have caged. They hollow the Earth to scrape for pieces of dirts that they melt into weapons and tools.

They worship rain and soil that grant them the crops on which their unworthy lives depend upon. Yet, they fear and despise the wild beasts that we hunter-gatherers respect as brothers and honoured foes. They enslave defenseless game and instead of giving them a merciful death, they pen them up and force them and their offspring to suffer a wretched life away from the fruits of the fields, the forests and freedom.

They value mundane things, like tools and pieces of ornamented bones, and call them "property". They also draw lines in the fields, divide the soil among families and call each parcel their "own."

"Property": Though I knew those agriculturists for decades, I have never grasped the meaning of this word. What I have learnt is that it creates jealousy and hatred amongst men. While we admire a man for his strength, agility and courage and while this admiration inspires us to strive for these noble qualities, agriculturists envy their neighbours for worthless pieces of metal and bones. Instead of crafting these things themselves, they would resort to what they call "theft". 

Their system of morality and justice is perverted. When someone uses something that is not his "property" and without the consent of the "owner", he has committed the crime of "theft". We, hunter-gatherers, while been fearless of death, value life and freedom the most. A crime only occurs when a man kills or harms another man with the intention of murder. In that case, either the harmed or a next of kin may face the aggressor in a fight to death unless the latter one has run away in cowardice. The agriculturists value their property more than their lives. They would cage someone like they cage animals, because he has led a pig or cow from a neighbour's home into his own. You may wonder what the difference is where a slave animal is kept. To the agriculturists, it is a crime and they would slaughter the criminal, who has no chance to defend himself in a fight or seek freedom in escape, like they slaughter an animal.

The biggest perversion is however their own lives. A hunter-gatherer, if he survives the childhood and withstands illness, may live for six or even seven decades. The life of an agriculturist is nasty, brutish and short. Even a healthy male may live no longer than forty years. And even if he survives so long, he will already have lost all his teeth and have no means for feeding. While we live on the nutritious flesh of wild beasts so that their life passes on to us, the agriculturists eats the products of the soil for which they have sacrificed their sweat and blood.

Very few of our offspring survive the childhood due to hunger and illness. However, those who become adults are strong with hardened bones and filled with vitality. The agriculturists give birth to many children that despite malnutrition and illness survive into adulthood . Thus they are weak and disease-ridden. Their bones are soft and deformed due to the hard labour in the fields. They are shorter than us and their mind is blunted by their monotonous activity.

It saddens me that these debased creatures which share same ancestry with us are multiplying like worms and rabbits, while our forests and habitats are shrinking. Imagine a world where hunter-gatherers are gone and Earth is torn apart and martyred by the surviving agriculturists. 

It is a horrible world.  

Following, "The Lament of an Agriculturist against Industrialists" and "The Lament of an Industrialist Worker against Internet Geeks" are coming. 

Proposal: New Electoral System (Bonus feature: Sortition)

Single-winner elections:

The voter casts a single vote either for 

  • a candidate,
  • sortition or
  • disapproval of all candidates.
The option with a relative majority wins. If all candidates are disapproved, the election has to be repeated with new candidates. If the voters decide for sortition, a candidate is selected by casting lots from a pool of citizens with passive suffrage who have voluntarily enlisted themselves for sortition. 

Multi-winner elections:

The voter casts multiple votes for the candidates, or a single vote for sortition or disapproval. The options with the most votes win. 

If the disapproval has more votes than some candidates, than the candidates with more votes than disapproval are granted seats. A new election is to be held with new candidates, where the former candidates with less votes than disapproval have a chance for re-run if their votes would have granted them a seat.

The number of seats elected by casting votes is the modulus of votes for sortition divided by the number of votes for the next lower ranked option, but not greater than the number of possible seats.

Example of an election for 10 seats, with candidates A - Z:
A is approved by 40% of the voters, B by 38%, C by 37%, D by 12%, E by 9%, F by 8%, G and H by 7%, I-Z by less than 5%. 
35% votes for sortition, 10% for disapproval.   

Candidates A, B, C and D are elected. Two seats are filled by casting votes as 35% (percentage of votes for sortition) divided by 12% (percentage of votes for candidate D, who has the next most votes) is more than 2 but less than 3. The remaining four seats are contested in a 2nd election, where E, F, G, H are allowed to run for the seats, since they would have been elected if not for the disapproving votes.