What are some games only intellectuals can beat?
999
Ghost Trick
Ace Attorney
Ever17
>>337579023
Mensa Academy
>>337579023
tales of monkey island
>>337579023
50% either it works or it doesn't
>>337580749
yeah it should be 50%.
One shot is always a crit, so the only chance that matters is that of the second chat, which has a 50% crit chance.
>>337579023
>intellectuals
if you have to call yourself that you're clearly not one.
Bioshock Infinite
![1920px-Bayes'_Theorem_MMB_01[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TJm9j4o.jpg "1920px-Bayes'_Theorem_MMB_01[1].jpg")
>>337579023
SpaceChem
>>337581284
This
>>337579023
33%
1. Both attacks critically hit
2. First attack crits, second doesn't
3. First doesnt, second does crit
>>337580749
>>337580925
it actually depends on what critical system they use.
League of Legends (yes, I know, lolbabs and ASSFAGGOTS) use a semi-random system where, at 50% crit, you actually crit more often than 50% of the time. It gives you *slight* increased odds for the next crit, to try and prevent "dry spells" where your 50% would go 4+ shots without going off. Criting resets it back down to the flat 50%.
Then there's the True 50%, where each shot occurs at exactly 50% odds.
>>337580749
It is 50%, but not because of your reason.
You already know 1 of the hits is a crit. So there is a 50% chance the other will also be a crit
50% chance crit x 50% chance crit = 25%
50% chance crit x 50% chance noncrit = 25%
50% chance noncrit x 100% chance crit = 50%
50% chance noncrit x 0% chance noncrit = 0%
25%
This is the correct answer
>>337582660
>it actually depends on what critical system they use.
It states what system they use. A constant 50% chance means it's not a pseudorandom system like you're talking about. So these fellas got it right and you can easily work it out with Bayes theorem or just a simple tree diagram.
>>337582041
>>337581284
and with pseudorandom systems you don't start at the stated chance like you seem to think, you start with worse odds but it evens out to the stated chance over infinite tries. That's the normal way of doing pseudorandom systems.
>>337583149
>50% chance noncrit x 100% chance crit = 50%
>100% crit chance
Okay so I'm fucking stupid when it comes to probability (it took me like an hour to understand the Monty Hall problem). Can someone explain to me why the probability isn't 25%? There's a 50% chance the first will hit, and a 50% chance that the second will hit, so why isn't it a 25% chance both will hit?
>>337583149
>At least one of the hits is a crit
>>337583546
There's a 100% chance that one of them will hit though.
>>337582041
The likelihood of these cases is not the same.
(3.) Happens at 50% likelihood while (1.) and (2.) happen at 25% each.
>>337583546
Because the problem states that one of them is a crit for sure
>>337580749
I like to give this answer to questions, but in this case 50% is actually right.
Brava.
First one crits, there's a 50% chance that the second one crits and they're both crits
Second one doesn't crit, there is 100% chance the second one crits but that's irrelevant because then both of them can't crit
There's exactly a 50% chance of each of these two events occurring
So we have a 50% chance that the first one crits, then a 50% chance from there that the second one will be a crit.
It's 25%
>>337583546
Just do a tree diagram or write down the outcomes by hand.
CritxCrit - 0.25
CritxHit - 0.25
HitxCrit - 0.25
HitxHit - 0.25
HitxHit is ruled out since it's stated "at least one of the hits is a crit", so you just dismiss it. That leaves three outcomes with equal probability of occurring, one of them being CritxCrit, so it's 1/3.
/v/ is bad at math
It's 150% you fucking retards.
IT'S 50 FUCKING % OK SHUT THE FUCK UP ALL YOU RETARDS
>>337584193
You're ignoring the order
>>337582660
Nobody alluded to some sort of system in which it's "technically not 50% like LoL" you stupid fuck.
Go back to red_dit with your pseudo-insightful nonsense. You'll get lots of upvotes.
>>337584193
oh yeah so it is.
Guys this is like the Monty Hall problem where the order in which the calculations are done is important. You're not "flipping the coins" at the same time and that makes things different
>>337584193
>adds up to 75%
When you eliminate HitxHit you have to adjust the odds for the rest of them.
>>337584359
no?
He has HitxCrit and CritxHit listed seperately
>>337579023
>Defeat a boss to get a item .
>11.11% it will duplicate next time.
>It duplicate 9 times in a row.
It's 1/3.
There are four possibilities, each with 25% chance:
No crit.
1st crit, not second.
2nd crit not first.
Both crit.
We know it's not the first, so we're left with three options, each of which has the same probability, and one of which is 'both crit'.
Therefore the odds are 1/3.
Crit - Hit = 33%
Hit - Crit = 33%
Crit - Crit = 33%
The answer is 1/3.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox
It's the second question/
>>337584448
Kill yourself
>>337584546
Fuck Moon lord
>>337584561
>>337584193
These anons are right
>>337584491
Which he did, which is why he says the answer is 1/3
>>337580749
It's 50% or 75% depending on your point of view. Neither answer is 100% correct, but university poofs wil disagree.
>>337584491
Yes, you divide 0.25 by 0.75 and get 1/3.
>>337584538
That's not the order, that's just which one lands on what
The two hits occur at different times, one after the other
By the time you do the second calculation, the first one is already done and effects what calculations are done for the second hit
If the first one doesn't crit the calculations for the second hit are irrelevant because there is no chance for both to crit
What's a 50% chance of a 50% chance?
>>337584561
Exept HitxHit is completely irrelevant, even to critxcrit.
There is still a 50% chance he doesn't crit on the first hit, it just means he will crit on the second attack.
So we only have to consider the case where he crits on the first hit, and after this there is a 50% chance he crits.
So the answer is 25%, the information you were given was irrelevant and trips everyone up.
>>337584941
This
Think it through, anons.
>>337584941
25% is the probability of two crits in a row with no other conditions.
If you set the condition that one of the hits has to be a crit, you eliminate one base case.
So instead of there being 4 cases, there are 3 cases.
So, there's one in 3 cases of both hits being crits.
Hence 1/3.
>>337585218
Oh yeah sorry.
Got it in my head there was an order to things, rather than it was a hint to the outcome.
Feel real dumb right now.
There are two hits.
One is a crit guaranteed, the other is a 50% chance.
It is a 50% chance both hits are crits because we are rolling on the chance of one hit with a 50% chance.
People get caught up in the order of the attacks, but in truth that does not matter. There are 3 outcomes, but only two possible outcomes (h/h, c/h, and c/c). H/H is impossible which leaves C/H and C/C. 1/2 is 50%.
>>337582660
psudo random is a way to pull towards the mean over extremely small samples, it doesnt move the mean you ignoramus
P(Both Crits | Given atleast 1 Crit ) = P(Both Crits and atleast 1 Crit)/P(1 Crit) = P(Both Crits)/P(atleast 1 Crit) =
Let X = number of crits
X~Binomial(2 trials, .5 probability of success)
P(X=2) = (.5)(.5) = .25
P(X=atleast 1) = 1 - P(X=0) = 1 - (1-.5)(1-.5) = .75
The answer is 1/3 fags
>>337585313
If it had specified which hit was required to be a critical, that would have changed the outcome. But it doesn't.
>>337585434
Wrong.
The order matters because the problem doesn't specify WHICH hit is a crit.
If the problem was like so:
A man hits a dude twice, the first hit is a crit, what is the chance of the second hit being a crit also?
You get these cases.
Crit - Hit
Crit - Crit
One in two.
50%.
>>337585218
You're not thinking it through here how it would actually play out
No Crit -> Crit and No Crit -> No Crit fill the same "slot" because one hit happens first. They still affect the probability because the second hit is 100% irrelevant if the first one does not crit. No Crit -> Crit is not a different outcome for the purposes of this problem than No crit -> No crit. You have to do the first hit first, and that's a straight 50-50 chance. If the first hit does not crit, it does not matter what the second hit is. You don't remove the No crit -> no crit and not the No crit -> Crit because even if that cannot occur, There's still a 50% chance of the first hit not being a crit which leads to a failure of "Both hits are crits"
If the first hit DOES crit, you now have a 50% chance that the second hit will crit. The order that they're done in matters and changes the probability.
You have one 50% chance, and then another 50% chance IF the first one succeeds. You're not doing it all at once and having a ~33% chance.
>>337585704
You forgot
Hit - Crit
>>337585704
The order doesn't matter precisely because we know one hit is a crit. It doesn't matter which hit is a crit because we only care about finding the hit that is the unknown, which is a 50% roll.
>>337585583
Not critting doesn't mean you're guaranteed to crit next. In practice not critting then critting wouldn't have double the chance of happening than critting then not critting, right?
You just have to remove the not crit-not crit possibility and readjust the probabilities so they're all equal again. It's 1/3.
>>337585583
This
It's super simple math
>>337579023
0% you retard
Both hits can't be crit if crit can be only 50%
>>337585910
>Not critting doesn't mean you're guaranteed to crit next
It does
>>337585910
>Not critting doesn't mean you're guaranteed to crit next.
Yes it does you dumbass
>At least one of the hits is a crit
>>337579242
>visual novels
OP said intellects, a baby could click random options.
>>337579023
Portal
especially Portal 2
>>337585583
Fucking thiiiiiiiis
For fuck's sake anons I only got like 17 on my Math ACT and I could fucking solve this
>>337585910
>Not critting doesn't mean you're guaranteed to crit next
It does, the fucking prompt said that at least one of the hits was a crit. Apply yourself.
>>337583149
That's what I thought too anon
>>337583919
>So we have a 50% chance that the first one crits, then a 50% chance from there that the second one will be a crit.
Either the first or second hit has a 100% chance of a crit.
>>337585895
It DOES matter because if the first hit is not a crit, there is a 0% chance of us succeeding
>>337585776
No, I was demonstrating what the problem would be if the order didn't matter.
>>337585895
It does matter. If you don't know which hit is a crit, you don't have 3 cases, you have 2. It changes the probability.
>>337585743
Again, you guys are assuming that the order doesn't matter.
Two versions of this problem, and this is completely mathematically sound, lookie here.
ORDER MATTERS:
3 cases
Hit - Crit
Crit - Hit
Crit - Crit
1/3
ORDER DOESN'T MATTER
2 cases
Hit - Crit or Crit - Hit
Crit - Crit
1/2
The problem in the OP is the former one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox
Please read this if you don't believe me.
>>337581220
That sign is f*cking cool! where is it from?
>>337580749
There are 4 options
1st hits, 2nd miss
1st miss, 2nd hits
Both hits
Both misses
You can eliminate the chance of both missing so there are 3 options remaining and 1 of 3 is both hitting
33%
>>337585968
>>337586003
>>337586117
Holy shit you plebs need to learn some conditional probability.
So you're saying hit/crit is twice as likely as crit/hit?
>>337586179
The second hit is irrelevant if the first hit doesn't crit
>>337586207
I study chemistry and probably took more college maths classes than you
>>337583429
>>337583567
[first hit] x [second hit]
>>337585948
ur dumb son
>>337579023
the answer is 75%
>>337586202
no clue m8, first thing on bayes' theorem's wiki page
>>337586187
No you fuckbar, this is not the Boy/Girl problem because we're asking if BOTH are a boy, not the chances that one is a boy or some shit
You didn't even read what I fucking wrote you just googled some shit you heard about in a class that sounded similar
>>337586187
>>337585776
Well i not object that case
>>337579023
No least one crit.
hit - hit
hit - crit
crit - hit
crit - crit
25%
At least one crit.
crit - hit
hit - crit
crit - crit
33%
+Also order didn't matter
crit - hit
crit - crit
50%
>>337586321
Cool, my computer science degree had a lot of maths classes too. So were you ever taught conditional probability?
>>337586362
a 100% crit chance contradicts the premise.
>>337583149
It is not 25%, the probability of each hit is independent from the other since one is already a crit you only have to count the one left, which is 50/50.
If you are unable to undertand that because of my broken english, just write it down (I will write CRIT as the one that always happens, and crit/no crit as the one we dont know):
1) CRIT; crit
2)CRIT; no crit
3) crit; CRIT
4)no crit; CRIT
2 times out of 4 (50/50) you crit, so its a 50%.
>>337586207
I'm saying that if you don't crit, you are garunteed to crit next
But that's fucking irrelevant for this problem
>>337579023
Four scenarios:
First hit is always crit:
>Crit, crit
>Crit, Hit
Second hit is always crit:
>Hit, crit
>Crit, crit
If you coun't the amount of "crit, crit" there are two out of four.
It's 50%.
>>337586276
If the first hit doesn't crit then the second one will always crit, and viceversa.
>>337586187
That question on the Wiki is flawed and unrelated since it has set an additional criteria (older child and younger child). There is no difference in the hits other than the crit roll.
One hit is a crit. The other hit has a 50% chance to crit. The chance is 50%.
Its 0% you retards
When have you EVER gotten two crits in a row?
>>337586516
Mr. Smith has two children. At least one of them is a boy. What is the probability that both children are boys?
Mr. Smith has two hits. AT least one of them is a crit. What is the probability that both hits are crits?
It's literally the same problem, man...
>>337586572
Yes in high school
Were you ever taught basic English?
>>337586652
IF the first hit doesn't crit the second hit DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER BECAUSE THE FIRST HIT DOESN'T CRIT SO WE ALREADY FAILED
>>337586630
Crit crit doesn't count twice. It's the exact same case.
There aren't four cases, there are three.
>>337586701
>Weapon + Buff 50%< to get crit
>Not get single crit after 20< hit.
>>337586883
There aren't 3. Either one of the hits is a guaranteed crit therefor the 'crit, crit' scenario can be split into two different ones because it's ambiguous which one of the crits is guaranteed.
>>337586630
Thank god someone with a brain posted on this board.
Thank you anon, you are probably one of the few no retarded posters here.
>>337587018
It doesn't matter which one is the 'guaranteed' crit. The hits aren't unqiue.
>>337586883
It counts twice because you know 1 will crit for sure, but you dont know which one. so its
1) CRIT, crit
or
2) crit; CRIT
They arent the same case and as such you have to count both.
>>337586612
1) CRIT; crit
3) crit; CRIT
Never go full retard. There's no difference between crit/crit and crit/crit.
>>337586709
No, it is different
It is different because of the order that the crits happen in
I am 100% sure about this
The chart in the boy/girl problem is rolling for one of four different pairs, but that's not what we're doing here. We're rolling 50%, then rolling 50% again, and we have to get them both right. There's a progression to it that doesn't exist in the boy/girl problem
The second hit doesn't matter if the first hit doesn't crit. the first hit NEEDS to be a crit in order for the statement "both hits are crits" to be true. So we're not rolling once for a pair of outcomes, we're rolling twice for two seperate outcomes.
>>337587226
>>337585583
THESE ARE CORRECT
LOOK AT THESE YOU MOUTHBREATHERS AND THINK ABOUT SHIT INSTEAD OF JUST GOOGLING A SIMILAR PROBLEM
If order matters then there are three case scenarios:
First crits, second doesn't.
First doesn't crit, second does.
Both crit.
The chance is 33%.
If the order does not matter then there are two:
Either of them crit and the other doesn't.
Both of them crit.
The chance is 50%.
>>337587226
WAIT NEVERMIND THIS ONE'S RETARDED
H, C BECOMES A 50% CHANCE SO IT'S 25% BECAUSE THERE'S STILL A 50% CHANCE OF THE FIRST ONE BEING H REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE SECOND ONE IS
SO 0.25/1 IS 25%
>>337587220
>>337587018
>>337587283
I'm completely baffled by this reasoning. There is no difference between a "guaranteed" crit and a regular crit.
You either crit or you don't.
Like, the only way this can play it is like this;
Crit and a hit
Hit and a crit
Hit and a hit
Crit and a crit
Since the only thing that is guaranteed to happen is that hit and a hit doesn't occur, so there are only 3 cases.
Look at the probability trees posted in the thread. They have mathematical reasoning behind them. There are no assumptions, it's just truth.
This shit is Probability 101.
50% since one of them is 100% crit it means there are 2 possible outcomes
1. first is crit, this means second has 50% chance of being crit
2.Second is crit, this means first one has 50% chance of being crit, in both situations it's 50% thus it's 50%
A=probability of two crits=.25
B=probability of at least one crit=.75
P(B|A)=1
P(A|B)=(1 x .25)/.75=1/3
Fucking Bayes' Theorum niggas, 1/3 is the right answer
>>337587429
wow someone who actually accepts multiple answers depending on interpretation. for the record I believe there's a 25 percent chance answer too, see:
roll for first hit, if it doesn't crit then the second will auto crit (50% chance of this scenario)
if the first hit did crit then roll for the second, 50% to crit and 50% to not crit
so the crit-crit scenario is 25% (and crit no crit is 25%)
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>>337587384
You quoted 2 different answers lad
>>337579023
It is 1/2 if we are looking at a pair of hits, and are given the information that one particular hit, the first or the second, was a crit.
It is 1/3 if we are looking at a pair of hits and told that at least one crit occurred with no further information.
>>337579023
Zelda Wii U
Wait we're all idiots
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This problem can be solved one of two ways depending on how you look at the information we're given
If it's decided as part of the calculation beforehand, as in it's actually part of the game mechanics that one of these will be a Crit, then it's 25% because of the order of things
If "At least one of the hits is a crit" is something we're being told after the fact, like if we're watching a recording of the two attacks and being told this by someone who's already seen it, but "at least one of the hits is a crit" isn't actually part of the game mechanics, then it's 33%
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was specifically designed to make us argue with each other depending on how we approached it
This is exactly why most game communities are ruined by mini-maxers.
>>337587590
You need to brush up on conditional probability. Just google Bayes' theorem and do some reading.
>H, C BECOMES A 50% CHANCE
It doesn't. You have a 50% crit chance, 0.5*0.5 is 0.25.
>>337587790
you cannot assume that failing to crit will force the second hit to crit like that.
the answer is 1/3
>>337587860
See
>>337587590
>>337587638
You're not listening. You're still looking at them as pairs and not a progression of events
The probability trees have two different answers because one is retarded and doesn't realize that the chance of H, C becomes 50%, not 25% when H,H is removed
>>337587226
there IS a different you retard, you dont know which one is the confirmed one so you ahve to count bopth possibilities because order in math matter.
Never go full retard ;)
>>337587384
The pictures show different results
>>337587996
no, anon, no. there is no ONE answer, this has been discussed to death.
I thought at least one hit had to crit, so if the first one doesnt the second one must (interpreting the problem such that the hits are calculated in order as they happen)
>>337587930
THE FIRST ASSUMPTION CONTRADICTS THE 50% CRIT CHANCE PREMISE
YOURE IDIOTS IF YOU SEE IT THAT WAY
>>337579023
Chess
>>337587701
you have to count 3 situation in one not just both of it.
>>337587996
You can.
There's always a guaranteed crit.
If the first one doesn't you can logically conclude that the second one will due to the rule.
That the first hit is a crit doesn't exclude the second from being the guaranteed one.
Pic related.
>>337587930
>The question was specifically designed to make us argue with each other depending on how we approached it
Of course because idiots without reading comprehension think they know math.
>>337587638
Let me handle this man, my mother tongue is retard.
They're ignoring the 50% crit chance and assuming the critical chance system is set up in such a way that in 2 swings you will always crit at least once. So if you get a hit first you would suddenly have 100% chance to crit on the second. Of course this contradicts the premise, and the only reason to think of such an answer is by being a momentous retard with no grasp of conditional probability whatsoever but that's what's happening here.
ITT: people acting like there's more to this problem than than what it asks for... what purpose? To seem smart on a cantonese jump-rope discussion panel?
>>337579242
VLR is mileages harder than any of those.
>>337587974
Holy shit no fucking listen to me
H, C is a 50% chance because it is the only possible outcome after H, and the possibility of H is 50% because H, H cannot happen. The only thing that can happen with the rules that we are given is H, C. So if you get an H, the chance that the next one will be C is 100%. 100% of 50% is 50%.
>>337579023
The answer is obviously 50%, if you have a true 50% crit chance per hit that is.
>>337588394
For fun now get out and go to other thread talking about you waifu.
>>337588267
There is no rule.
With these 2 random hits in this one particular instance, you do not have 2 misses, but that does not mean it is impossible to ever happen.
>>337588250
no you don't, there is no third state.
It's either
Crit NOT
CRIT CRIT
NOT CRIT
or
CRIT CRIT
>>337587996
That's literally what we're being told you idiot
One must be a crit. If the first one is not a crit, the second one must be a crit. There is no possible outcome where the second one is not a crit after the first one is not a crit
>>337588204
Nigga what
>>337588176
>>337588267
Seriously hoping this is a troll now.
The way this problem works is you write all possible outcomes, then eliminate the impossible based on what you are then told. Seeing as you can't even draw the tree correctly though, I doubt you'll ever get it.
>>337588267
How is a guaranteed crit on the first hit 50% crit chance? That's absurd. It's really the OPs fault because his question was so vague.
>>337588567
>It's either
>Crit NOT
>CRIT CRIT
>NOT CRIT
This is the 3 state.
The Guarantee 1 crit only delete the NOT NOT which make it not become 25%
>>337588398
>harder
I love VLR but ascribing any level of difficulty to these games is arbitrary and retarded. Also half of VLR is literally a fucking hidden object game.
>>337588535
You essentially already know what one of the hits is going to be due to:
>At least one of the hits is a crit.
Then either the first or second hit can be variable (between H an C)
>>337588714
Because the 50% then applies to the second hit and not the first one.
The first hit in your scenario is the guaranteed one. That doesn't eliminate the second one from being a crit.
>>337588381
Yeah, I really don't understand these weird assumptions people are making.
I think I'm going to duck out before I have an aneurysm. The funny thing is that I had almost this exact problem posed before me in a probability and statistics class, and I assumed it was 50% before thinking about it, and I got schooled for it.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
FUCKING LISTEN
YOU WILL GET TWO DIFFERENT ANSWERS DEPENDING ON IF YOU ASSUME THAT THE "AT LEAST ONE OF THE HITS IS A CRIT" IS PART OF THE MECHANICS THAT WE APPROACH THE PROBLEM WITH OR A HINT AT WHAT THE TRUE RESULT IS
YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT STOP FUCKING ARGUING
UNLESS YOU THINK IT'S 50%, THEN YOU'RE RETARDED
All possibilities for 2 hits are:
n-n
C-n
n-C
C-C
All possibilities occur with uniform probability.
The last 3 follow the condition of the problem, and only the last one satisfies the problem.
One out of three.
>>337588401
>Holy shit no fucking listen to me
I do, but you're wrong and I'm trying to explain why.
>H, C is a 50% chance
No, it's 1/4 unrestricted, and 1/3 with the restriction of H/H not occurring. Ruling out H/H doesn't increase the probability of H/C compared to the others, it's still as likely to occur as any of the other outcomes.
>The only thing that can happen with the rules that we are given is H, C
No, the only "rule" is that you have a 50% crit chance. The fact that at least one crit is something you're told post-factum and doesn't influence the odds in any way.
> the chance that the next one will be C is 100%
You have a 50% chance to crit. A 100% crit chance contradicts the premise. Your answer is not a viable solution.
>>337588381
>They're ignoring the 50% crit chance and assuming the critical chance system is set up in such a way that in 2 swings you will always crit at least once
That is literally what the problem is telling us
>>337588860
There's no different way of interpreting the question.
>One of the hits is always a crit
>The other has a 50% chance of being one.
4 different outcomes 2 of which is desired means there's 50% chance of a desired outcome.
100%, I don't fuck around with my crits, you fucking noobs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox
Mr. Jones has two children. The older child is a girl. What is the probability that both children are girls?
Mr. Smith has two children. At least one of them is a boy. What is the probability that both children are boys?
Gardner initially gave the answers 1/2 and 1/3, respectively; but later acknowledged that the second question was ambiguous.[3] Its answer could be 1/2, depending on how you found out that one child was a boy. The ambiguity, depending on the exact wording and possible assumptions, was confirmed by Bar-Hillel and Falk,[4] and Nickerson.[5]
end your lives
>>337588949
You're making assumptions the problem didn't give you and acting smug about it. So is he. See >>337588860
>>337588954
No, it says in no uncertain terms that you have a 50% chance to crit. Not that you have a crit chance that's sometimes 50% and sometimes 100%, that's something you've made up on your own. Something that contradicts the premise of us having a 50% crit chance.
>>337588994
>>337588954
It's telling you the outcome of 2 entirely arbitary hits, not a mechanic of the crits
>>337588794
That's only if you say "There can't be no crits" BUT we have TWO possibilities that branch out on other two, 4 states, where 2 are identical
>>337588813
No, really. 999 is babby-tier compared to VLR.
>>337589074
Oh wow maybe if you read the thread you'd realize how fucking retarded you are
>>337586203
You have the logical structure right but misunderstand the question, one hit will always crit so we can discount:
both misses.
now to fullfill both parts of the problem we need 2 crits so we can discount any outcomes with a miss,
the only outcome we are left with is both hits which is, therefore, a 75% chance.
>>337588204
OP should have stated or dismiss 50% per hit instead of just saying out of two hits, one being a guaranteed crit (100%) the second hit being 50% or 0% based on absolutely ZERO information from the OP.
Fact is: the equation was stated with a massive flaw. It's like saying 50% times X divided by 100% minus Y.
>>337588994
Well, there are actually two ways to interpret the question if you have dyslexia.
Whether or not the order matters. If the order doesn't matter the problem is actually 50%. But the problem posed in the OP implicitly states that the order doesn't matter.
I think people are confusing this together? That's the only logical conclusion I can come to.
The only other conclusion I can come up with is thatthe people in this thread are dumb and have never done probability
>>337589189
>s-s-s-stop destroying my shitposting thread witha single wiki link
Kill yourself faggot
every single one of these threads is only because the question is ambiguous
Ya'll niggers need god.
Order doesn't matter. At least one of the hits is a crit. That means 1/2 hits is a crit right off the bat. We can ignore that now because no one said that it was the first or second hit. No one cares if it's the first or second hit.
There's 1 hit left to make. There's a 50% chance that it will hit a crit. 1*50% = 1/2
You have a goddamn 1/2 chance of both hits being a crit.
ORDER
DOES
NOT
MATTER
YOU
FUCK
NUGGETS
>>337584678
It's 50%
One of the hits is always a crit so the remaining hit is either a crit or it isn't a crit.
>>337589148
It doesn't specify
>>337588994
You're being fucking stupid
Flip two coins, You're twice as likely to get one heads and one tails than you are to get two heads because there are two possibilities to get one of each and only one possibility to get both heads
00
0-
-0
--
I always love these threads because you can never tell who's joking and who's for real. Like there are legitimately, actually real idiots in this thread who think the answer is 50% and not 25%
>>337588994
If you treat the "one of the hits is a crit" as superfluous information about an arbitrary set of results (and the question as unrelated to this), then it's 25% based on 50% and then 50% again for hit 1 and 2.
If you treat "one of the hits is a crit" as a crit mechanic, then there are only three possibilities:
MC
CM
CC
Which gives us 33%.
Jesus christ guys, if you just apply Bayes' Theorum you literally get 1/3. It's a proven fucking rule of probability. It's not that hard.
"Hide this thread"
I just won, by the way.
>>337589296
If the order doesn't matter the question would've been phrased like this:
"You hit an enemy twice. The first hit is a crit. Assuming a 50% crit chance, what is the probability of both hits being crits."
The way the question is phrased implies the order matters.
>>337589281
The link was already posted MULTIPLE TIMES and discussed you nimrod
>>337589296
You're retarded and I've already explained why read the fucking thread
>>337589207
Its 50% you imbecile, reread the question and stop overthinking it
>>337589087
I'm not. There are only two assumptions, the 50% crit rate and at least one of the two swings being a crit. Both of those are given in the OP.
>YOU WILL GET TWO DIFFERENT ANSWERS DEPENDING ON IF YOU ASSUME THAT THE "AT LEAST ONE OF THE HITS IS A CRIT" IS PART OF THE MECHANICS THAT WE APPROACH THE PROBLEM WITH OR A HINT AT WHAT THE TRUE RESULT IS
That right there is assuming something not stated in the problem. Furthermore it contradicts the premise of you having a 50% chance to crit.
>>337589296
I'm never going to understand where all of the belligerent confidence people who have never learned conditional probability get when they're talking about conditional probability comes from.
>>337589482
>s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s--s-s-s-s-top reposting things that DESTROY my shitposting thread
MY
FUCKING
GIGASIDES
>>337589446
>if you just apply Bayes' Theorum you literally get 1/3
Are you retarded? 1/3 is not a 50% chance no matter how you spin it. Go back to school.
>>337589446
No, use your fucking brain, don't just vomit out some shit you read, there are multiple ways to interpret the question
The mostly agreed upon answer to this "problem" is "not enough information is given". Not knowing how "at least one is a crit" is determined makes it unclear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxm4Xxvzohk
Read up 50%fags, it's time to learn some conditional probability and Bayes Theorem
>>337589296
You want to argue the opposite bro, because if you don't know which one, the first or second, was the crit, then you can't use that argument to argue the remaining hit is 50%, because you have no idea which hit is the remaining one.
>>337589296
Shut your goddamn fucking mouth. Let me think for a second.
>>337589486
The problem could be read that way. It doesn't contradict anything, it could simply be a calculation done after the chance to crit
Roll 50% chance to crit
Get not crit
Check if previous hit was a crit
If not, overwrite result, make this one a crit
>>337589157
4 state
1 state can't happen
2 are identical
Only 1 lead us to the Crit Crit
Which make it become 1/3
Except that you say if 1 crit not guaranted it will be 1/3 because the other 2 are identical so count only 1.
>>337589296
It doesn't matter if you care about order or not. It's still 1/3.
You know I can at least understand where the 50% people are coming from due to the vague language of the question regarding how you know at least 1 hit was a crit.
The 25% people are bonkers though.
>>337582041
holy fuck you are one stupid motherfucker
2 and 3 are the same thing, 1 critical hit and one not. The question is what are the odds that both hits are crits. It's 50%
So is it one hit is always going to crit, or that the second hit will crit if the first hit did'nt? This is important. Anyone who tries to answer these question without proper understanding is a fool.
>>337589617
If people try to refute this or say that it's irrelevant, I'm going to literally kill myself.
>>337579023
KOTOR 1 has some pretty challenging logic and mathematics puzzles. I don't think they're all required, but you'll have to play darkside to solve everything with violence or destruction.
>>337589580
You never assume information you were explicitly given in a math problem. It gives information about the set of both hits and not of either hit individually, and so that's what we have to use.
>>337586175
25% is the chance that both are crits if it isn't guaranteed that one is a crit. But since it says that one hit will definitely be a crit, then the odds of them both being crits goes up to 50%.
>>337586203
this anon is correct. it's the same as the coin flip. the rest of you are fucking stupid
>>337589698
>If not, overwrite result, make this one a crit
That's not a 50% chance to crit, so it contradicts the premise.
>>337589785
They are not the same thing, they are 2 separate elements with equal probabilities.
You are not giving the "1 Crit 1 Not" event its proper weight if you disregard those as the same.
CC
CH
HC
HH
-HH
CC
CH
HC
1/3
>>337589826
I can imagine this problem being posed in a class and some neckbeard in the back of the class starts spouting about game mechanics.
>HOW CAN U SOLVE THIS WITHOUT KNOWING HOW THE CRIT SYSTEM WORKS
>>337589373
It is obviously the implication of the question, based on the coin flip question, the order that information is given and the fact that a game mechanic like that is retarded.
You can actually make a program to simulate this.
Make two accumulator variables, one for when you get two crits and one for when you get one crit. Then, make a loop that iterates many times. In each iteration, use RNG to generate 1 or 0, twice. Sum these two random numbers together to represent three cases: two crits, one crit, or no crits.
If you get the two crits case, increment the variable you made to accumulate instances of two crits. Else, if you get the one crit case, increment that variable you made to accumulate instances of one crit. Else, redo the iteration. Finally, print the results.
On each run, you'll find an approximate success:fail ratio of 1:2.
I'm a retard when it comes to probability, but wouldn't the chance be 50%? One hit is always going to be a crit, and the other always has a 50% chance, therefore there is a 50% chance of both being crits, no?
>>337589813
it's irrelevant
>>337586041
Ghost Trick isn't a visual novel, it's a puzzle game.
>>337589781
25% derives from ignoring the "1 hit was a crit" part as unrelated to the final question and just working out 2 crits from 2 hits with 50% crit chance.
>>337589826
That's cool. Doesn't mean "At least one is a crit" isn't an ambiguous statement.
>>337589794
People have already stated that OPs problem is flawed. The best answer would be a 50% chance on the second hit regardless of the first already have crit.
The 25% and the 1/3 people are absolute idiots though because just because the first hit crit does not degrade the second hit's crit chance below 50%. At least that is what is assumed from OPs shit question.
>>337589617
Literally irrelevent. At least one hit will always be a crit as per g8ven in tge wuestion, which means the other hit will either be a crit or not leaving only two probabilities, one critical or two criticals
I'm
>>337586630.
and I agree with this:
>>337590058
>>337590074
So give us the 1/2 relevant ,dear mr.irrelevant.
>>337590058
If the order doesn't matter, yes.
If the order matters, no.
>>337590241
>So give us the 1/2 relevant
what
>>337590204
>>337590058
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bayes%27+theorem
There's 3 different ways you can program this to get all 3 results.
One of the two hits is randomly chosen to be critical, then the other hit is calculated, which you get 50%.
Both hits are calculated, if both hits are hits then the calculation happens again until a critical happens, which then you get 33%.
The first hit is calculated. If it's a critical, then the next hit is calculated. If it's a hit, then the next hit is changed to a critical, to which you get 25%.
So yeah it all depends on the programmer's interpretation I guess.
>>337590136
It's not. It gives explicit information on the set {hit 1, hit 2}, and any further assumptions, like that we only have that information because we know that {hit 1} was a crit, are baseless.
>>337589617
What the fuck are you talking about? How does Bayes Theorem help equate anything in the OP at all? A 50% chance per hit DOES NOT have diminishing returns on the second hit regardless of a 100% chance on the first hit, which I assume already happened.
>>337590320
I don't have javascript enabled. Try harder.
>>337590140
25% chance comes from
1/2 x 1/2
50% chance comes from
1/2 x 1/1(guaranteed crit)
In the first scenario the guaranteed to crit part doesn't factor amount of double crits.
That's why I'm confused about this shit, the problem lacks information to distinguish between the two.
>>337590140
>The best answer would be a 50%
I do my first hit, and miss. I had a 50% chance to miss. The second being a hit by mechanics is irrelevant.
I do my first hit and crit. I can still miss the second hit.
Hence we can at the very least here understand that the chance of failing must be above 50%.
>>337590321
>One of the two hits is randomly chosen to be critical
Having a 100% crit chance contradicts the premise.
>If it's a hit, then the next hit is changed to a critical
Having a 100% crit chance contradicts the premise.
You're left with only 1 valid interpretation as the other two contradict the premise.
>>337590369
What are you talking about, you can't assume the first hit was a crit, it could have been either hit.
Question: What are the odds that both hits are crits, if at least one hit is a crit?
Answer: 50%.
This is the probability of A given B, where A is "both hits are crits" and B is "at least one hit is a crit."
It's pretty simple.
>>337587787
just let them argue, this is fucking hilarious
>>337590505
>you can't assume the first hit was a crit
But it's in the OP as part of the equation my boy.
>this thread
It's all a joke, right guys?right?
>>337590058
Just draw the probability tree.
Making two hits at a 50% crit rate gives four possible outcomes of equal probability 0.25 - hit then hit, hit then crit, crit then hit, crit then crit.
We know that at least one crit, and so the conditional step removes the outcome with no crits: hit then hit. The probability of (crit then crit) is its unconditional probability over the total probability of the remaining outcomes, or 0.25 / 0.75.
>>337589945
I can't believe half of these thread is linking to fucking wikipedia articles and talking about running theorems and shit.
There's three outcomes. It's asking what the likelihood of getting one of the three is. A fucking child could do this.
>>337590330
>It's not.
It is.
>It gives explicit information on the set
It is an ambiguous part of a WORD PROBLEM.
Go ahead, express the information "at least 1 is true" using numbers alone.
>>337590486
Alright then, there you go. I was just putting every interpretation in its programming equivalent.
>>337580749
literally this
>>337584678
>american education
>>337590618
Learn to read before you learn to math son.
>>337590053
You can do the same shit with a single coin anon
Flip a coin, flip a coin again, but if the first result was tails change it to heads.
>>337590691
Have you ever fucking seen a probability problem in your life?
ALL of them are word problems.
>>337590663
This is just a shit tier /b/ thread with coins changed to crits to make it about videogames
>>337590663
Outcomes being 100% random and pre-determining information about the outcomes such that one of the outcomes is impossible, are two mutually exclusive concepts
>>337590691
Maths and numbers are not the same thing. It is a maths problem, asked in a fairly standard form for a question on conditional probability, and it explicitly gives information on a set of results.
>>337590505
Are you high or did you just not take the time to read it?
With that said though I think the guaranteed crit hit on the first attack is a distraction from the overall equation and thus irrelevant to the answer.
>>337590824
Neato burrito. Totally irrelevant, though. Doesn't make it any less ambiguous.
>>337590663
That's like saying If I painted a 6 sided die with 1 on 5 sides and a 2 on 1 side the chances of getting a 2 are 50%.
>>337590919
Okay. It's expressed with this thing called the "english language". Ambiguity is such a part of using words to convey meaning that we actually have a word for ambiguity in our speech. It's "ambiguity".
uh
meme
final answer
>>337579023
H/C
C/H
1/3 Claim
>Both Different
1/2 Claim
>Both Identical
So does the Identical different ?
Does 2 twin with exact same genes and same nourish and active, but not same location different?
>Yes 1/3
>No 1/2
http://www.braingle.com/brainteasers/29228/two-coins.htmlYou might initially think that the answer is 1/2, but it is not so.
>>337590791
I'm sorry but no matter how you put it guarantee is always 100% no matter what you say. Math doesn't lie unless the problem is flawed, which it is, but the answer in this case is still 50% based on the equation.
Delude yourself with false math all you want but you cannot fool anyway when you say a glass of water is half full when you can clearly see it is completely empty.Queer.
>>337590989
That's not even equivalent.
>>337590656
Hit then crit and crit then hit are equivalent because the order of crits is irrelevant.
The problem is essentially asking
>The crit chance is 50%. One hit is a crit. What are the odds that the other hit is also a crit?
And the answer is 50%, because they're independent events.
>>337590053
In lua. Works slightly differently, but the concept is still the same
If order matters: 33%
If order does not matter: 50%
But why would the order matter?
Let me rephrase this question to try and make more sense.
I am replacing 2 lightbulbs in a dark room.
I have a 50% chance of picking a good bulb, and a 50% chance of picking a burnt out bulb.
I screw in the bulbs and flick on a light switch in the hallway. I can see light coming from the room.
What are the odds both bulbs work?
>>337591197
But there's 2 outcomes anon, its 50/50
>>337591241
>And the answer is 50%, because they're independent events.
It's assumed but it's not stated in the OP and I think this is the reason so many people are confused. I agree though, based on the information, it is a 50% crit chance.
>>337590964
If the first hit isn't and the second hit is a crit, the condition "at least one of the hits is a crit" is true without the first hit being a crit. Your interpretation removes a possibility that is not explicitly removes by the question.
>>337591241
Saying something is irrelevant doesn't make it true. If you flip a coin, you are more likely to get two different results that two of the same result, because order does matter and (HT or TH) is twice as likely as either one of HH or TT.
>>337591298
Why wouldn't it matter? They're two distinct events.
>>337591195
Point to the word "guarantee" in the problem, dumb trash.
>>337591359
0.25%
>ITT: anons getting mad at each other over using different models of a problem.
>>337586203
Missing isnt a variable though.
It says you hit it twice,so missing is impossible. So theres only 2 options
Crit, Hit
or Crit Crit
50%
>>337591389
There's three outcomes.
>>337591449
Whether you have HTT or THT or TTH is irrelevant if the question is only about the number of heads.
The odds of crit A being true are 50% no matter whether crit B is true or false. If we assume B is true, then the question "what are the odds that both crits are true?" has an answer equal to the probability that crit A is true.
There are two outcomes:
1 crit
2 crits
Each has a 50% chance of being true.
>>337591449
>If the first hit isn't
It clearly states that the first hit is a guaranteed crit though. How else can you put it? There is no "if the first hit isn't" because the first hit clearly is/has critted already. You CANNOT, for the love of god, say that the hit didn't crit when surely you can see it already did.
That is why the first hit is irrelevant to the question because the only probability that matters is the second hit, does it crit or does it not crit and based on OPs own data it has a 50% to crit.
You hit the enemy with your life points as damage,
Upon killing him you will regain life points spent, failure to do so will result in your death.
How do kill?
>arguing about solved problems
This has been analyzed to death on this board, and it was analyzed to death by mathematicians as the "Boy or Girl paradox" even before /v/ got a hold of it.
Fact: If you are merely told that you got "at least one" crit (or equivalently that you got "not zero" crits), you can only rule out one of four equally probable outcomes, and therefore the answer is 1/3.
CC - 1/3
CN - 1/3
NC - 1/3
NN - ruled out
Fact: If you know you got at least one crit because you checked the result of one particular attack and observed that it was a crit, you can rule out two of four equally probable outcomes, and therefore the answer is 1/2.
CC - 1/2
CN - 1/2
NC - ruled out
NN - ruled out
>hurr durr you're wrong
If you think I'm wrong about anything written above, you should look up "Boy or Girl paradox" on Wikipedia, because the situation there is the same. In other words, if you think I'm wrong, the explanation of the equivalent problem on Wikipedia is wrong too, and you've got some editing to do. Get to it! Bonus points if your edits aren't reverted by people who actually know about probability. You might even have to engage in an edit war with a mathematician. Good luck! Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox
The critical hit problem is ambiguous for exactly the same reason that the second question of The Two Children Problem is ambiguous: If all we know is that we have at least one boy/crit, the probability of two boys/crits is 1/3. If we know we have at least one boy/crit because we looked at one child/hit and saw a boy/crit, then the answer is 1/2. Your intuition probably tells you that such a subtle difference in the interpretation of the problem shouldn't change the answer, but it does.
>>337591817
Now you just trolling
>>337591817
First hit is not a guaranteed hit. That's why order matters in the problem.
