>>266
バカ丸出し
What we have then is this: For each fixed opponent strategy, if i is chosen uniformly independently of that strategy (where the "independently" here
isn't in the probabilistic sense), we win with probability at least (n−1)/n. That's right. But now the question is whether we can translate this to
a statement without the conditional "For each fixed opponent strategy". – Alexander Pruss Dec 19 '13 at 15:05
How about describing the riddle as this game, where we have to first explicit our strategy, then an opponent can choose any sequence. then it is
obvious than our strategy cannot depend on the sequence. The riddle is "find how to win this game with proba (n-1)/n, for any n." – Denis Dec 19 '13 at 19:43
But the opponent can win by foreseeing what which value of i we're going to choose and which choice of representatives we'll make. I suppose we would
ban foresight of i? – Alexander Pruss Dec 19 '13 at 21:25
yes the order would be: 1)describe the probabilistic strategy 2)opponent choses a sequence 3)probabilistic variable i is instanciated – Denis Dec 19 '13 at 23:02
この流れを分かってないの、おまえだよｗ

Prussは論破されて悔し紛れに
「ランダム選択される列を予め予想できれば出題者側が勝てる」と言っているｗ
まるで誰かさんみたいな屁理屈だなｗ　その予想は数当てより困難だぞｗ　ていうか不可能だぞｗ　予想不可能だからランダムっていうんだよｗ