Talk:Rendezvous problem
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Euler
[edit]I'm pretty sure that euler is involved in the limes of chance to met after infinite time of this. Practically you search as long as you can because a fixed place is relatively nonexistant, its just saving subjective energy. --Ollj 19:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The dilemas description is also pretty weak in used search algorythms.
what's the damn answer
[edit]And what's the damn answer? What should I do in the case? -- Taku 19:21 28 May 2003 (UTC)
I dunno. But I imagine that if you walk on a random course you're guaranteed to meet the other person eventually, no matter what they do. Evercat 19:24 28 May 2003 (UTC)
- I think the whole point is that it's a mind-game. Riddles don't have to have answers. As for what strategy... I think the article may be mistaken, there is no guaranteed way to meet the other person (unless you have an infinite amount of time). The more you wander randomly, though, the higher your probability of meeting the other person. And of course, if you both stand still, you can never meet. The mind-game part of it is, "what would you do?" similar to the Prisoner's Dilemma, which has a logically sound answer and a different answer that is more intuitively correct (self-preservation versus maximum good for everyone). -- Wapcaplet 19:31 28 May 2003 (UTC)
- See some of the external links for some answers. The problem is actually quite deep.
deleted those external links
[edit]Could the person who deleted those external links please explain what was wrong with them? I'm only an interested layperson in this subject area, but they looked interesting and relevant to me. I would also be interested to know what was wrong with this sentence:- "As well as being a problem of theoretical interest, the rendezvous problem is a real problem with applications in the field of operations research and search and rescue."
R Lowry 19:36 28 May 2003 (UTC)
posted this article this morning
[edit]I posted this article this morning(28 May 2003).First i will try to explain
why i preffer to call it "Rendezvous dillema" and not "Rendezvous problem" and then i will also explain why i deleted that external links. But first of all i apologize for my poor english(it's not my first not even my second language)--
- We have two young people X and Y .X will make the following rationament.If i will stay still that the chance to meet my partener is 1/2 since Y can stay still or walk.If i choose to walk then the chance to meet them is (1+p)/2
where p is the probability they meet if they both walk.Since (1+p)/2>1/2 i will walk.This seems to be a logical rationament.But if Y make the same rationament and they will both walk then the chance to meet is p.Since they are for the first time in that park they don't have any intuitional idee about the value of p.So they have a serios dillema.So you can see why i prefer to call it dillema not problem .Here we have problem to solve .The external links were about a real algoritmical search problem and have nothing to do with this dillema who rather belongs to game theory filds than to algoritmics
best regards
prisoner's dilemma
[edit]This doesn't sound at all like the prisoner's dilemma. Instead it sounds like a fancy class of coordination game. I'm going to pull out the prisoner's dilemma bit, and link coordination game in the "see also" section. I don't have access to the paper cited, so I could be missing something. If that paper describes this as being related to the prisoner's dilemma, feel free to revert me. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)