Last time we discussed the setup for the silent duel problem: two players taking actions in $ [0,1]$, player 1 gets $ n$ chances to act, player 2 gets $ m$, and each knows their probability of success when they act. The solution is in a paper of Rodrigo Restrepo from the 1950s. In this post I’ll start detailing how I study this paper, and talk through my thought process for approaching a bag of theorems and proofs.
Two men start running at each other with loaded pistols, ready to shoot! It’s a foggy morning for a duel. Newton and Leibniz have decided this macabre contest is the only way to settle their dispute over who invented Calculus. Each pistol is fitted with a silencer and has a single bullet. Neither can tell when the other has attempted a shot, unless, of course, they are hit.
For the last four years I’ve been working on a book for programmers who want to learn mathematics. It’s finally done, and you can buy it today. The website for the book is pimbook.org, which has purchase links—paperback and ebook—and a preview of the first pages. You can see more snippets later in the book on the Amazon listing’s “Look Inside” feature. If you’re a programmer who wants to learn math, this book is written specifically for you!
Mathematics students often hear about the classic “blue-eyed islanders” puzzle early in their career. If you haven’t seen it, read Terry Tao’s excellent writeup linked above. The solution uses induction and the idea of *common knowledge—*I know X, and you know that I know X, and I know that you know that I know X, and so on—to make a striking inference from a seemingly useless piece of information.
Over at Math3ma, Tai-Danae Bradley shared the following puzzle, which she also featured in a fantastic (spoiler-free) YouTube video. If you’re seeing this for the first time, watch the video first. Consider a square in the xy-plane, and let A (an “assassin”) and T (a “target”) be two arbitrary-but-fixed points within the square.
Every now and then I hear some ridiculous things about the equals symbol. Some large subset of programmers—perhaps related to functional programmers, perhaps not—seem to think that = should only and ever mean “equality in the mathematical sense.” The argument usually goes, Functional programming gives us back that inalienable right to analyze things by using mathematics.
Tai-Danae Bradley is one of the hosts of PBS Infinite Series, a delightful series of vignettes into fun parts of math. The video below is about the same of SET, a favorite among mathematicians. Specifically, Tai-Danae explains how SET cards lie in (using more technical jargon) a vector space over a finite field, and that valid sets correspond to lines. If you don’t immediately know how this would work, watch the video.
Problem: Compute distance between points with uncertain locations (given by samples, or differing observations, or clusters). For example, if I have the following three “points” in the plane, as indicated by their colors, which is closer, blue to green, or blue to red? It’s not obvious, and there are multiple factors at work: the red points have fewer samples, but we can be more certain about the position;
When NP-hardness pops up on the internet, say because some silly blogger wants to write about video games, it’s often tempting to conclude that the problem being proved NP-hard is actually very hard! “Scientists proved Super Mario is NP-hard? I always knew there was a reason I wasn’t very good at it!” Sorry, these two are unrelated. NP-hardness means hard in a narrow sense this post should hopefully make clear.
Binary search is one of the most basic algorithms I know. Given a sorted list of comparable items and a target item being sought, binary search looks at the middle of the list, and compares it to the target. If the target is larger, we repeat on the smaller half of the list, and vice versa. With each comparison the binary search algorithm cuts the search space in half.