I assume the reason for the second number is to give information about the range of random nos? I can't see otherwise why it would be relevant. Because if you knew the range beforehand, like you do with most RNGs, then the first number is more likely to be less than the unseen number if it is less than half of the maximum, and more likely to be more if its is greater than half of the maximum.
I'm also assuming that the numbers are drawn from a uniform distribution, although this is not stated. On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:11:07PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote: > Although this isn't new, I just came across it (perhaps again) and was so > enchanted that I wanted to share it. > > Generate but don't look at three random numbers. (Have someone ensure that > they are distinct. There is no constraint on the range.) Look at the first > two. You are now able to guess with a better than 50% chance of being right > whether the first number is larger than the unseen third. > > I like this almost as much as the Monte Hall problem. > > *-- Russ * > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
