One day it is hoped that enough mathematicians will have worked on the problem to have finally, definitively answered Steve Ballmer’s interview question. The job will be shared between them.
With these types of trick questions, it is always interesting what is an acceptable trick and what is not. The question did not specify whole numbers as it does not specify a random selection, but one is in bounds and the other not.
It is. Or at least it was for some of us. I didn't care if the candidate ever got the right answer. I cared about the thinking, the questions, the strategies, and the conversation.
And if some interpretations lead to trivial solutions, but one leads to a complex problem, it's likely that their intention is the latter. A kind of tacit communication
> it is always interesting what is an acceptable trick and what is not
I have not found the type of person who asks trick questions to be the type of person who finds it interesting to have the trick questions they've posed to be prodded.
> I have not found the type of person who asks trick questions to be the type of person who finds it interesting to have the trick questions they've posed to be prodded.
I find it depends entirely on whether the person is asking a trick question to try prove themselves smart (and are sensitive about it), or as in this case, are confident in their own intelligence, and want to assess yours.
>I enjoyed reading that feels in the same realm [annoying boxes]
I had to reread that a few times to figure out what he was saying. All that comes down to is the fact that in his presentation technically there's nothing linking the propositional value of the box labels to the box contents. In most puzzles this linkage specified "outside the puzzle world" but in this case it's specified "inside the puzzle world" and so nothing can be deduced from it. But any sane person would assume the two align (especially in the setting of a puzzle), and so there's the gotcha.
Seems very different from the kind of "trick" questions in interview which are closer to one-way questions where the problem is trivial with some key insight but quite hard otherwise.
I assume the real point of the puzzle (which is lost in the post) is to demonstrate how not all statements have a definite truth value.
If we assume that the label on the red box must be either true or false then we can prove that the treasure is in the red box. We’d be wrong though, since the treasure is in the green box.
I disagree, and when I first encountered it it seemed pretty obvious to me, but maybe I’m just used to question where the answer can be “not enough information”
One day it is hoped that enough mathematicians will have worked on the problem to have finally, definitively answered Steve Ballmer’s interview question. The job will be shared between them.
The real irony being that they show up to work just to discover that it was a software programming position.
But they can't quit once they taste that sweet total comp.
Just in time for the job to be replaced with AI.
Well, Terrence Tao is trying his very best to replace himself with an AI.
With these types of trick questions, it is always interesting what is an acceptable trick and what is not. The question did not specify whole numbers as it does not specify a random selection, but one is in bounds and the other not.
I always felt that part of the interview process is the candidate asking clarifying questions as well as making and stating assumptions.
It is. Or at least it was for some of us. I didn't care if the candidate ever got the right answer. I cared about the thinking, the questions, the strategies, and the conversation.
And if some interpretations lead to trivial solutions, but one leads to a complex problem, it's likely that their intention is the latter. A kind of tacit communication
Actually, it may just as likely be that the interviewer is looking to see if you over complicate things. So _ask_.
> it is always interesting what is an acceptable trick and what is not
I have not found the type of person who asks trick questions to be the type of person who finds it interesting to have the trick questions they've posed to be prodded.
Completely tangential, but something I enjoyed reading that feels in the same realm: https://blog.plover.com/math/logic/annoying-boxes-solution.h...
> I have not found the type of person who asks trick questions to be the type of person who finds it interesting to have the trick questions they've posed to be prodded.
I find it depends entirely on whether the person is asking a trick question to try prove themselves smart (and are sensitive about it), or as in this case, are confident in their own intelligence, and want to assess yours.
>I enjoyed reading that feels in the same realm [annoying boxes]
I had to reread that a few times to figure out what he was saying. All that comes down to is the fact that in his presentation technically there's nothing linking the propositional value of the box labels to the box contents. In most puzzles this linkage specified "outside the puzzle world" but in this case it's specified "inside the puzzle world" and so nothing can be deduced from it. But any sane person would assume the two align (especially in the setting of a puzzle), and so there's the gotcha.
Seems very different from the kind of "trick" questions in interview which are closer to one-way questions where the problem is trivial with some key insight but quite hard otherwise.
I assume the real point of the puzzle (which is lost in the post) is to demonstrate how not all statements have a definite truth value.
If we assume that the label on the red box must be either true or false then we can prove that the treasure is in the red box. We’d be wrong though, since the treasure is in the green box.
> any sane person would assume
I disagree, and when I first encountered it it seemed pretty obvious to me, but maybe I’m just used to question where the answer can be “not enough information”
Previous comments yonder:
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41434637
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41463330