Tag: rules

Posted in Science & Nature

Niven’s Laws

Posted on by Jinavie

Larry Niven is a science fiction author. Like many other science fiction authors, he is responsible for citing many rules regarding the world, humorous or not. Niven took to this another level by publishing a series of laws on “how the universe works” as far as he can tell. The following is the revised list as of January 29, 2002.

  1. Never throw shit at an armed man.
  2. Corollary to #1: Never stand next to someone throwing shit at an armed man. 
  3. Never fire a laser at a mirror.
  4. Mother Nature doesn’t care if you’re having fun.
  5. Giving up freedom for security is beginning to look naive. (or “F x S = k”, meaning that the product of freedom and security is a constant.)
  6. Psi and/or magical powers, if real, are nearly useless.
  7. It is easier to destroy than to create.
  8. Any damn fool can predict the past.
  9. History never repeats itself.
  10. Ethics change with technology.
  11. Anarchy is the least stable of political structures.
  12. There is a time and a place for tact.
  13. The ways of being human are bounded but infinite.
  14. When your life starts to look like a soap opera, it’s time to change the channel.
  15. The only universal message in science fiction: There exist minds that think as well as you do, but differently.
  16. Corollary to #15: The gene-tampered turkey you’re talking to isn’t necessarily one of them.
  17. Never waste calories.
  18. There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it.
  19. No technique works if it isn’t used.
  20. Not responsible for advice not taken.
  21. Think before you make the coward’s choice. Old age is not for sissies.
  22. Never let a waiter escape.

Posted in Science & Nature

Three Laws Of Robotics

Posted on by Jinavie

The Three Laws of Robotics are a set of rules devised by the science fiction author Isaac Asimov regarding the functioning of robots as discussed in his novels about robots.

  1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Posted in Life & Happiness

Slap Bet

Posted on by Jinavie

If you ever have a disagreement with a friend and would like to bet over who is right, make the ultimate wager: the slap bet. Basically, whoever is right gets to slap the other person in the face as hard as they possibly can. On the surface it appears to be simple and harmless. But in reality, it is a deadly and formidable wager. For example, if one ever makes the unfortunate mistake of making a slap bet with the condition that the slap can occur at any place at any time, then they must live in fear of a slap appearing out of the blue and leaving a glowing, red and rather painful hand print on your face.

Being such a pricey bet, it is always useful to appoint a Slap Bet Commissioner. The Commissioner is responsible for resolving any problems that may arise regarding the bet, such as making a ruling. They must remain completely unbiased and hold the integrity of the slap bet above all else. They must also enforce the sacred rules of the slap bet, such as no premature slapulation. If the rules are disobeyed, the Commissioner has the power to endow one player the right to slap the other player (with completely subjective judgement of how many slaps they can get).

The slap bet is also highly customisable, where the players can settle on the number of slaps and the manner in which they will be delivered. Will the loser receive ten slaps in a row? Or will they get five slaps that can occur from the moment they lose to infinity?

A slap bet is the ultimate bet that is so satisfying and cathartic for the winner, but for the loser it is… well, let’s just say it is a real slap in the face.

Posted in Psychology & Medicine

Rules

Posted on by Jinavie

In 1967, a group of scientists designed an experiment where five monkeys were put in one cage with a ladder in the middle and a banana suspended over it. When a monkey tried to climb the ladder to reach the banana, it was hosed down with ice cold water to discourage it. However, at the same time the four other monkeys were sprayed as well. This was repeated until the monkeys were conditioned not to climb the ladder as it meant being blasted by cold water. Interestingly, even when the reward was tempting enough for a monkey to brace the cold water and climb the ladder, the monkey was swiftly taken down by the other monkeys – fearing the cold water – and was punished by a beating. This further discouraged the monkeys from climbing the ladder even when the researchers stopped spraying the monkeys with water.

The researchers then substituted one of the original monkeys with a new monkey who had not been in the cage before. This new monkey immediately noticed the banana and started to climb the ladder. The other monkeys saw this and responded with rage, enforcing their unspoken “rule” of never climbing the ladder. The new monkey quickly learned that climbing the ladder was a bad thing.
The researchers substituted another original monkey for a new monkey and the same thing happened. They repeated this until all monkeys were replaced.

When they substituted the last monkey in (number 10), the cage was already filled with “new” monkeys who had never been hosed before, but nonetheless knew not to climb the ladder. When the monkey was punished for climbing the ladder, it gave an expression that seemed to question why he was being punished. The other monkeys did not know why; none of them had been punished with cold water and only knew that the other monkeys would beat him up. Even though none of them knew why the punishment was required, they dished it out regardless. The rule had been engrained into the mob, with each monkey following it without any logical reason.

Posted in Science & Nature

Monty Hall Problem

Posted on by Jinavie

Imagine that you are on a game show and you are given the choice of three doors, where you will win what is behind the chosen door. Behind one door is a car; behind the others are goats, which you do not want. The car and the goats were placed randomly behind the doors before the show.

The rules of the game show are as follows: 

  • After you have chosen a door, the door remains closed for the time being. 
  • The game show host, Monty Hall, who knows what is behind the doors, opens one of the two remaining doors and the door he opens must have a goat behind it. 
  • If both remaining doors have goats behind them, he chooses one at random. 
  • After Monty Hall opens a door with a goat, he will ask you to decide whether you want to stay with your first choice or to switch to the last remaining door. 

Imagine that you chose Door 1 and the host opens Door 3, which has a goat. He then asks you: “Do you want to switch to Door 2?”

Is it to your advantage to change your choice?

image

Most people believe that as an incorrect option (goat) is ruled out, their odds of winning the car go up from 1/3 to ½ even by staying on the same Door 1 and there is no benefit to switching. However, it is better to switch doors as this will double your odds of winning the car. To illustrate this point, the following three scenarios (with the car being behind Door 1, 2 or 3) can be imagined, using the above rules of the game:

image

In Scenario 1, you have already chosen the car (Door 1) so Monty Hall will randomly open Door 2 or 3. Switching will obviously lead you to losing the car. The chance of you losing after switching, therefore, is 1/6 + 1/6 = 1/3 (as either Door 2 or 3 could be opened)

In Scenario 2 and 3, because you chose the wrong door (goat) and Monty Hall will open the door with the goat behind it, switching will lead you to choosing the car (no other choices). As the odd of either scenario happening is 1/3 each, your odds of winning after a switch is 2/3 – double the odds of winning after not switching (1/3, the odd of your first guess being right).

Of course, this is only under the assumption that the rules of the game were followed and that Monty Hall will always open a door with a goat behind it. This problem and the answer suggested was extremely controversial as tens of thousands of readers refused to believe that switching could be a better choice. However, as the above illustration shows, the Monty Hall problem is a veridical paradox – a problem with a solution that appears ludicrous but is actually proven true by induction.