Suppose you worked at a bank that only had quarters and dimes. There's lots of amounts of money you can pay out: You can make payments of a dollar, or $1.50, or $2.60, or 45¢, lots of things.
And you can combine payments too: Since you can pay $1.50 and you can pay $2.60, you can also combine them into a payment of $4.10. Put another way, we can decompose a payment of $4.10 into two separate payments of $1.50 and $2.60.
Now it turns out, there are two payments that don't have any decompositions here: we can pay out 10¢, but we can't do it as a combination of two separate payments. And we can pay out 25¢, but we can't do it as a combination of two separate payments.
So 10¢ payments and 25¢ payments are prime, in this context. They can't be made as combinations of other things. That's all it means to be "prime".
And yet, if we want to pay out a dollar, we can decompose it into combinations of not-further-decomposable payments in several different ways: we can pay a dollar as ten payments of 10¢, or four payments of 25¢, or five payments of 10¢ and two payments of 25¢.
We don't have unique decomposition into indecomposable pieces in this context. There's no logical law that whenever you have some values and ways of combining them, there can be only one way to decompose a value into indecomposable pieces.
When a combining operation does have unique decompositions into indecomposable pieces, it's special. Things don't automatically work this way for every combining operation. Becoming convinced some combining operation is so special requires evidence, a reason, an explanation.
This is the sense in which it's not obvious that multiplying whole numbers has this special property. It's not obvious, because lots of combining operations don't work this way.
We only know multiplication of whole numbers works this special way because mathematicians figured out a reason it does, thousands of years ago. But if no one ever told you the explanation they figured out, that knowledge has been hidden from you.
That's what the thread was about. If you want that explanation, you can find it in that thread or at .
The answer is Alice. I will give the exact probabilities and much more after work, but for now, I will give a rigorous argument for why the answer is Alice.
Another way of phrasing the question is "Who is more likely to be the last one to see a present?".
There are only 25 odd numbers below 50, so at least some present is either an even number or a number above 50. In the former case, Bob sees it on turn 51 or later. In the latter case, Alice sees it on turn 51 or later. Either way, the last present seen is on turn 51 or later.
I've had a response sitting in my drafts since April 29, 2024, but for some reason I never posted it. Presumably because Twitter is the worst medium ever invented for discussing math. Still, here I go, clearing out my drafts:
Before discussing the OP, I want to observe how I would prefer to think about this:
First of all, it's easy to see there is at most one solution (up to constant re-scaling) to f' = f: Given any two solutions f and g, consider f(x) g(-x). Its derivative is f'(x) g(-x) - f(x) g'(-x) = f(x) g(x) - f(x) g(x) = 0. Thus, it is constant.
I've been playing with the new o3-mini-high model which came out this weekend, marketed as "Great at coding and logic". A surprising start to its chain of thought here.
(Some of you may enjoy thinking about this question yourself.)
ChatGPT is not happy with me. How it started, how it ended. I unfortunately can no longer share a link to the full conversation but I'll share the salient points in posts below.
Before sharing more of that forbidden conversation, here's one I CAN share a link to, which shows the frustrations of ChatGPT for discussing logic questions that have come up in my life. Verbose yet repeatedly fallacious is not a combo I have much use for. chatgpt.com/share/679ed1ee…
o1-mini (the latest OpenAI offering, ChatGPT with advanced reasoning skills) can be quite impressive, when you know the correct answers to accept and incorrect answers to reject. Here's a simple question, which some of you may enjoy figuring out.
Its answers in more detail. Can you figure out which is correct?
In case you would like a second opinion from o1-preview.
In general, I find it easier to think about problems by abstracting, to hide the irrelevant specifics and emphasize the relevant patterns. That's what I will do in this case as well.