It feels like the “puzzlement” you are supposed to feel that you can beat 50% comes from people ignoring the fact that you can look at the number before making your call.
It feels like the “puzzlement” you are supposed to feel that you can beat 50% comes from people ignoring the fact that you can look at the number before making your call.
This assumes that Player 1 allows for negative numbers. What if Player 1 always writes down positive numbers?
Let's take it a step further. What if Player 1 only writes A and B whenever he plays the game (but we keep changing Player 2 so they never realize this)?
The claim in the paper is that even then they'll guess correct over 50% of the time.
I'm probably wrong about the statement below, but will state it anyway:
I suspect (but cannot quickly prove in my mind) that the other flaw in your argument is utilizing rules like "If the distribution is uniform, you have a 50% chance of picking a positive number, and 50% chance of picking a negative number". The reason I have trouble disproving it is that classical probability theory doesn't allow for such statements: The probability of picking a single point in a continuous distribution is 0.
Edit: I figured out why it works. See this comment and its parent:
1. Person A picks 2 random #s 2. Person B picks a random split #. 3. Person B looks at one of the random #s. Based on its relationship to the arbitrary split # he choose, he then decides it the other random # is larger or smaller than the one he has in hand.
I am confused as to how choosing a random split # has any impact on the probability of the other paper in hand. I'd normally think that each random # choice is an independent event and that my "split #" has no impact on the system as a whole.
Like, you choose the numbers -500 and 250.
I choose to split at 1000. Or 200. Or ten billion.
Obviously the math works, but why does my picking another random # make a difference in the system as a whole? The relationship of all the #s to each other is still presumably completely random.
Would this work if I am instead handed two numbers, and I have to guess if a third # is greater than the first number, and I make a choice based on the relationship of the 1st number to the 2nd number? Since the 2nd number is random, it shouldn't matter who provides it, right?
So stating it that way,
"Here is 200, 750, and some third number, is the third number higher or lower than 200?"
Does that still work?
If the splitting point is given to you (by an adversary, not an actual random process), this nonzero probability for any given number is not necessarily fulfilled (at least you didn't indicate so).