Test your wits

A paradox, a dilemma, a riddle, an enigma... Insoluble? You tell me. I will post 2 questions that are intended to pose a dilemma. Can you solve them? Is it even possible to solve them, or will the result end in a stalemate?1. Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?2. An eccentric billionaire places before you a vial of toxin that, if you drink it, will make you painfully ill for a day, but will not threaten your life or have any lasting effects. The billionaire will pay you one million dollars tomorrow morning if, at midnight tonight, you intend to drink the toxin tomorrow afternoon. He emphasizes that you need not drink the toxin to receive the money; in fact, the money will already be in your bank account hours before the time for drinking it arrives, if you succeed. All you have to do is intend at midnight tonight to drink the stuff tomorrow afternoon. You are perfectly free to change your mind after receiving the money and not drink the toxin. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

I'll give you some clues. Game theory... What does game theory advocate? Alright, second clue is freewill vs predestination. Have fun.

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

Great answers so far. Some of them entail not playing the game. But in the first scenario, assume that it would not matter if they didn't have sufficient evidence.In scenario 2, assume that you won't abstain from the game, or assume that you are a curious onlooker where someone else is playing the game and opts not to abstain.

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

Well, you guys figured it out. Indeed, it is the "Prisoners Dilemma" and the "Kavka's Toxin Puzzle." Most of you got the first one; that the principle Professor Nash advocated -- that cooperation wins out over self-interest.Kavka's Puzzle, however, really has no right or wrong answer. It is supposed to lead into a metaphysical or theological question about predestination or freewill. The basic premise is this: Can you intend to drink the toxin, if you know you don't have to?The object of the exercise isn't really about how you get the money, the point of the exercise is to parallel the theological question of freewill vs predestination.You all did very well, and some of your answer were very clever. I was interested in seeing your rationale.

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

Prisoner's dilemma - WikipediaThere is some risk, regardless. But the "Nash Equilibrium" levels the playing field to cooperation being the safest route. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"