Timeline for Does War have infinite expected length?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 5, 2010 at 13:52 | comment | added | Kevin O'Bryant | @Hugo: you're assuming that a stable cyclic formation is the way to have an infinite game. Here's another game to try the reasoning on: Pick a random rational (somehow), and then add it to itself until you get an integer. Variation: Pick a random rational, and then add it to your running total until you get an integer. In the variation, the randomness makes it much easier to have an infinite game. | |
| Sep 5, 2010 at 6:33 | comment | added | dakota | On the other hand the randomness assumption is a statistical one, therefore the proof may be informative in cases of, sufficiently defined, pseudorandomness. | |
| Sep 4, 2010 at 9:12 | comment | added | Hugo van der Sanden | Moving the played cards to the bottom of the winner's stack in random order makes it much harder to retain a stable cyclic formation, so this result seems not at all surprising, and minimally informative about the answer for any variant without the randomness. | |
| Jul 9, 2010 at 13:30 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Great ! | |
| Jul 9, 2010 at 13:16 | history | answered | Kevin O'Bryant | CC BY-SA 2.5 |