Neither is it "proving", it's a demonstration or simulation.
| [reply] |
Yes, my phrasing was a bit poor. In my defense, i never went to Uni, so never received formal scientific training. I'm just a simple software developer.
To be fair, in my usual use cases "works correctly to the forth digit after the comma in all cases" fullfills all my usual project requirements (as set by law). So in these circumstances simulating it to that degree is equivalent to "proof that the solution works".
But yes, i totally agree that there is a big difference between actual mathematical proof and my 1970s-british-automotive-worker "that will do" attitude ;-)
| [reply] |
The approach is legit, since constructing a counterexample is a way to prove a theory is wrong. ¹
Computational mathematics - the use of computers for mathematics itself - is a hot and controversial topic.
I have more problems with calling it Veritasium's riddle, though I like the blog.
But I hope the nature of the solution is clearer now, because the success of large groups of prisoners is coupled. If they are member of the same cycle they either all succeed or all fail.
Imagine a hypothetical strategy coupling all prisoners, the success rate would be even 50% not only 30%.
Update
¹) just the opposite isn't true, there are plenty of conjectures which "work" for a while... Till they don't.
Update
coincidentally I just watched a video from the same channel explaining to the end how hard it is to find a counterexample for a wrong conjecture: The Simplest Math Problem No One Can Solve - Collatz Conjecture
see also the Pólya conjecture
| [reply] |
| [reply] |