TheXpert: Okay, someone write a simple strategy for 20-30 meters, then we'll see.
well you can start with an easy one, a corridor of almost 30 metres:
1) pass corridor 1 completely and return to the centre
2) Walked 19.(9) metres along corridor 2 and went straight back to the centre (if it is empty). If there was a perpetrator in it, we would have seen him
3) While we were walking those 20 meters there and back, the occupant would not have had time to escape unnoticed into another corridor and get far away.
so
4a) we'll see him running down corridor 1 and go after him.
4b) we don't see him, so he's in corridor 3 and we go get him.
TheXpert: Ah, that's it, I got it wrong in my reasoning. Everything was thinking right, except for one thing.
I don't get it, I've got infinity too so far...
But the moderator says it's a mistake.
I don't want to go down different corridors. You can cut one off right away by just going all the way down it. I don't care where the occupant runs the whole time.
Mischa, wait, I really want to solve it on my own.
TheXpert: That' s where it all makes sense from here. There's a convergent sequence there.
I can't see it yet. I'm still having a breakdown.
And anyway,
2) walked 19.(9) metres down corridor 2 and went straight back to the centre (if it's empty). If there was a perpetrator in it, we would have seen him
40 metres of reserve means that we have already calculated that the perpetrator would probably be no closer than 20 metres to the room - if the MM is in it.
I have an endless supply of it...
Okay, someone write a simple strategy for 20-30 meters, then we'll see.
well you can start with an easy one, a corridor of almost 30 metres:
1) pass corridor 1 completely and return to the centre
2) Walked 19.(9) metres along corridor 2 and went straight back to the centre (if it is empty). If there was a perpetrator in it, we would have seen him
3) While we were walking those 20 meters there and back, the occupant would not have had time to escape unnoticed into another corridor and get far away.
so
4a) we'll see him running down corridor 1 and go after him.
4b) we don't see him, so he's in corridor 3 and we go get him.
I don't get it, I've got infinity too so far...
But the moderator says it's a mistake.
I don't want to go down different corridors. You can cut one off right away by just going all the way down it. I don't care where the occupant runs the whole time.
I don't get it, I've got infinity too so far...
But the moderator says it's a mistake.
I don't want to go down different corridors. One can be cut off at once.
My reasoning was based on the sequence of the occupier. Apparently it is incorrect.
Mischa, wait, I really want to solve it on my own.
TheXpert: That' s where it all makes sense from here. There's a convergent sequence there.
I can't see it yet. I'm still having a breakdown.
And anyway,