Re: Hidden information question
- From: "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 26 May 2006 15:35:26 -0700
xhoster@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jerry Dallal wrote:
Schizoid Man wrote:
Several coworkers would like to know their average salary. How can
they calculate it, without disclosing their own salaries?
It's perhaps a semantic thing, but in the scheme proposed by you, and
earlier by xhos. everyone disclosed their own salaries except YOU,
Sure, they disclosed it to the calculator, or a piece of paper. Does that
really count as discloser? Do you think the first person is in cahoots
with a bunch of pieces of paper?
I never said or implied such. I said if YOU can add something that
they
don't know, then EVERYONE of them can add something YOU don't know.
who thinks you are smarter than the rest of them.
That's with reference to my immediately preceding re-statement above.
This statement says a lot about you, but nothing about the system under
question.
What system?
The proposed scheme is bogus.
If YOU can play the game of adding a random number to YOUR salary,
The *first* person adds a random number. It doesn't matter whether
first person is you or me or someone else.
So far, so good.
then assuming that your are working in a think-tank that everyone can
come up with the same idea, and adjust the average from his OWN
fake noise (random or not is irrelevant).
That is, if EVERYONE enters Si + Ei where Ei is known only to person
i, then nobody will ever know the true average salary. In order for
the
scheme to work, one has to make the tacit assumption that there is
ONE, and ONLY ONE, smart donkey in the group, who thinks he is
smarter than the rest, and the rest is indeed as dumb as he thinks by
telling the truth of their salary when you think you are smart enough
to fool them.
The whole scheme of having the first person add a random number is not some
kind of secret plot. It is an open collaboration.
That's still ANOTHER unstated assumption!
If everyone trusts everyone else, why should ANY such scheme needed?
It takes a seriously cracked mind not to understand this.
By "cracked", do you happened to mean "open"?
Congratulations.
Thank you.
Just because you think you have a scheme, and think that because YOU
said everyone should cooperate that everyone will.
That's rather GULLIBLE on your part, first of all.
Who gets to be your "FIRST" person? Who chooses him, and why?
I am the second person. I just quietly laugh at the silly idea and
add
$150,000 to my salary figure.
Someone like yourself will think your have been clever to have obtained
a correct average. One of your gullible pals even thought the
estimate
is "unbiased" when he doesn't even know the meaning of unbiasedness
in the Expected value sense.
Where did this ridiculous problem originate -- I am really curious now,
that Jerry and you could have come up with the SAME SILLY SOLUTION!
-- Bob.
.
- References:
- Hidden information question
- From: Schizoid Man
- Re: Hidden information question
- From: Jerry Dallal
- Re: Hidden information question
- From: Reef Fish
- Re: Hidden information question
- From: xhoster
- Hidden information question
- Prev by Date: Re: To espyrian EXCLUSIVELY
- Next by Date: Re: Mann-Whitman: critical values by Monte Carlo
- Previous by thread: Re: Hidden information question
- Next by thread: Re: Hidden information question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
