The game is to pick a box numbered from 0 to 2; there is a hidden logical computation E yielding another value 0 to 2. Omega has a perfect predictor D of you. You choose C.
The payout is 10^((E+C)mod 3), and there is a display showing the value of F = (E-D)mod 3.
If F = 0, then:
D = 0 implies E = 0 implies optimal play is C = 2; contradiction
D = 1 implies E = 1 implies optimal play is C = 1; no contradiction
D = 2 implies E = 2 implies optimal play is C = 0; contradiction
And similarly for F = 1, F = 2 play C = F+1 as the only stable solution (which nets you 100 per play)
If you’re not allowed to infer anything about E from F, then you’re faced with a random pick from winning 1, 10 or 100, and can’t do any better...
The same one that you’re currently seeing; for all values of E there is a value of F such that this is consistent, ie that D has actually predicted you in the scenario you currently find yourself in.
The game is to pick a box numbered from 0 to 2; there is a hidden logical computation E yielding another value 0 to 2. Omega has a perfect predictor D of you. You choose C.
The payout is 10^((E+C)mod 3), and there is a display showing the value of F = (E-D)mod 3.
If F = 0, then:
D = 0 implies E = 0 implies optimal play is C = 2; contradiction
D = 1 implies E = 1 implies optimal play is C = 1; no contradiction
D = 2 implies E = 2 implies optimal play is C = 0; contradiction
And similarly for F = 1, F = 2 play C = F+1 as the only stable solution (which nets you 100 per play)
If you’re not allowed to infer anything about E from F, then you’re faced with a random pick from winning 1, 10 or 100, and can’t do any better...
I’m not sure this game is well defined. What value of F does the predictor D see? (That is, it’s predicting your choice after seeing what value of F?)
The same one that you’re currently seeing; for all values of E there is a value of F such that this is consistent, ie that D has actually predicted you in the scenario you currently find yourself in.