Blackrock interview question ( HIGH IQcels GTFIH)

[Deleted member 76351]

 

[Deleted member 71543]

Not a clue

 

[Andremln]

Shoot one, make it clear that if anyone tries to escape the consecuences will be fatal, by doing this the others will recognize and understand that trying to escape will result in death, so basically discourage attempting to escape, the escaping murderer has a probability of death of a 100%

 

[Deleted member 17578]

Tell them you will shoot the first one attempting to escape.
Since the first to attempt to escape is certain of death, nobody will be the first to attempt an escape. Therefore nobody will escape.

solved.

 

[Deleted member 76351]

Tell them you will shoot the first one attempting to escape.
Since the first to attempt to escape is certain of death, nobody will be the first to attempt an escape. Therefore nobody will escape.

solved.

 

[lurking truecel]

Make them stand in a line and do a collateral

 

[Deleted member 17578]

Shoot one, make it clear that if anyone tries to escape the consecuences will be fatal, by doing this the others will recognize and understand that trying to escape will result in death, so basically discourage attempting to escape, the escaping murderer has a probability of death of a 100%

Make them stand in a line and do a collateral

I was thinking of these solutions at first but I figured the essence of the question was in the idea that the prisoners know that you don't have enough bullets for everyone. Thereby making it a non-zero probability of survival, meaning that they would all try to escape if you try brute-forcing it.

 

[Andremln]

Make them stand in a line and do a collateral

Germans did that to save resources but you can only hit a couple of skulls before the bullet deviates/stops, even FMJ bullets

 

[Deleted member 71543]

Post more riddles mane I want a second try

 

[Deleted member 76351]

I was thinking of these solutions at first but I figured the essence of the question was in the idea that the prisoners know that you don't have enough bullets for everyone. Thereby making it a non-zero probability of survival, meaning that they would all try to escape.

yeah i was also thinking that i think the reason why the question is vague to show you consider those scenarios when making up a solution which demonstrates higher order thinking and critical thinking

 

[greycel]

Tell them you will shoot the first one attempting to escape.
Since the first to attempt to escape is certain of death, nobody will be the first to attempt an escape. Therefore nobody will escape.

solved.

That's the expected answer though
I don't think there would be a point in asking the question if the answer was this straight forward.. I feel the idea these criminals are specifically murderers is intentional

I think the interviewer wants us to answer by saying we will kill one of the murderers to showcase we have the ability to do so with others

If they mentioned thieves etc, it wouldn't be a justifiable enough reason to kill one off the bat (as they haven't violated that boundary with somebody else themselves)
So I think you're correct:

Shoot one, make it clear that if anyone tries to escape the consecuences will be fatal, by doing this the others will recognize and understand that trying to escape will result in death, so basically discourage attempting to escape, the escaping murderer has a probability of death of a 100%

 

[Andremln]

I was thinking of these solutions at first but I figured the essence of the question was in the idea that the prisoners know that you don't have enough bullets for everyone. Thereby making it a non-zero probability of survival, meaning that they would all try to escape if you try brute-forcing it.

No, they don't know it, if the question doesn't explicitly say it then don't bother, it's an explicit analysis question not an implicit one

 

[Deleted member 86877]

If i was chaddd

 

[greycel]

I was thinking of these solutions at first but I figured the essence of the question was in the idea that the prisoners know that you don't have enough bullets for everyone. Thereby making it a non-zero probability of survival, meaning that they would all try to escape if you try brute-forcing it.

If the killers know you don't have enough bullets (so they know you have 1 only), then realise these murderers would take their chance for freedom and would hatch a plan to rush all together and whoever dies dies.
Only one of them has everything to lose (if you also somehow get the shot to be fatal), and 99 others have everything to gain

If I was a criminal I'd take my chances to escape
One bullet? Really? I'm going to be locked away for 1 bullet?

I'm guessing they are unaware

 

[Deleted member 17578]

That's the expected answer though
I don't think there would be a point in asking the question if the answer was this straight forward.. I feel the idea these criminals are specifically murderers is intentional

I think the interviewer wants us to answer by saying we will kill one of the murderers to showcase we have the ability to do so with others

If they mentioned thieves etc, it wouldn't be a justifiable enough reason to kill one off the bat (as they haven't violated that boundary with somebody else themselves)
So I think you're correct:

You may be onto something, but 'discouraging' escape by killing one of them doesn't solve the riddle. Because the question clearly states: 'if there's a non-zero chance of survival, a murderer will try to escape.' Discouragement may make them seem like chance of survival is low, but it will always be above zero since you are just 1 guy with 1 gun and not enough bullets/time to kill 100 murderers.

 

[Deleted member 17578]

No, they don't know it, if the question doesn't explicitly say it then don't bother, it's an explicit analysis question not an implicit one

It's clearly implied. It is impossible for 1 guy to guard 100 prisoners. It's common sense where the difficulty lies, especially with the information that ALL PRISONERS will attempt escape if they think there's a non-zero chance of survival. With non-zero being an extremely important part of this problem

 

[lurking truecel]

It's clearly implied. It is impossible for 1 guy to guard 100 prisoners. It's common sense where the difficulty lies, especially with the information that ALL PRISONERS will attempt escape if they think there's a non-zero chance of survival. With non-zero being an extremely important part of this problem

Mr riddler

 

[AutistTruecel]

split them into pairs, announce that you’ll shoot the partner of whoever escapes. The partner, to prevent his death, will attempt to stop or kill the escapee

 

[Deleted member 17578]

If the killers know you don't have enough bullets (so they know you have 1 only), then realise these murderers would take their chance for freedom and would hatch a plan to rush all together and whoever dies dies.
Only one of them has everything to lose (if you also somehow get the shot to be fatal), and 99 others have everything to gain

If I was a criminal I'd take my chances to escape
One bullet? Really? I'm going to be locked away for 1 bullet?

I'm guessing they are unaware

You are forgetting the fact that no individual murderer will try to escape if he is certain of death.

If the first to try is certain of death, then nobody will be the first to try. My solution works even if the prisoners are aware I only have 1 bullet.

 

[Deleted member 17578]

@greycel would you be the first to try an escape if I told you that I will shoot the first one who tries?

No, you would try to encourage others to make the first attempt and take the bullet. Under a theoretical situation, it will leave you all in a stalemate with nobody wanting to make the first move and face certain death. Thereby solving the riddle.

Details like: 'that 1 bullet not causing a fatal wound' is argueing about irrelevancies which the riddle is not about and is likely exactly the thinking process that this riddle is designed to (de)select for.

 

[Andremln]

split them into pairs, announce that you’ll shoot the partner of whoever escapes. The partner, to prevent his death, will attempt to stop or kill the escapee

This writing is fire but what if the escapee wins? If you kill him then entropy will start and everyone will try to escape

 

[Deleted member 33534]

You are forgetting the fact that no individual murderer will try to escape if he is certain of death.

If the first to try is certain of death, then nobody will be the first to try. My solution works even if the prisoners are aware I only have 1 bullet.

U a smart nigga

 

[Deleted member 33534]

You are forgetting the fact that no individual murderer will try to escape if he is certain of death.

If the first to try is certain of death, then nobody will be the first to try. My solution works even if the prisoners are aware I only have 1 bullet.

What if two escape at the same time

 

[liberiangrimreaper]

Either make one an example by killing one. or bluff to the core w/ pointing the gun towards the murderers, nobody is going to test the bluff of a man with a gun if they want to live, and I'm assuming they do.

Psychological games basically

 

[Andremln]

@greycel would you be the first to try an escape if I told you that I will shoot the first one who tries?

No, you would try to encourage others to make the first attempt and take the bullet. Under a theoretical situation, it will leave you all in a stalemate with nobody wanting to make the first move and face certain death. Thereby solving the riddle.

Details like: 'that 1 bullet not causing a fatal wound' is argueing about irrelevancies which the riddle is not about and is likely exactly the thinking process that this riddle is designed to (de)select for.

Yes someone could try to do so, actions have more psychological effect than talk, killing one first is doing the same while proving the point to the murderers, just by talking you are creating a schrodinger's cat scenario where you are uncertain if you will actually kill someone if he tries to escape

 

[Deleted member 17578]

What if two escape at the same time

One will always try to screw the other one over tbh. Thereby making nobody move.

Maybe 2 prisoners will band together and be like: 'Okay on the count of 3, we both start running.' One of them counts down and then nobody moves anyways as to screw the other one over.
Primary school vibes.

 

[fat and furious]

make sure they are all watching you, empty the gun, throw it over the fence and say, so that everyone can hear you: I'll kill everyone who tries to escape

 

[Deleted member 17578]

Yes someone could try to do so, actions have more psychological effect than talk, killing one first is doing the same while proving the point to the murderers, just by talking you are creating a schrodinger's cat scenario where you are uncertain if you will actually kill someone if he tries to escape

The rules are outlined by the riddle: All prisoners will attempt to escape if the chance is non-zero, no prisoner will attempt to escape if the chance is zero.
Your plan is to argue that the psychological effect is enough for everyone to believe their chance of survival is ZERO. Not 0.1%. No it's zero.

You are making up new rules. You wouldn't pass the blackrock test

 

[greycel]

You are forgetting the fact that no individual murderer will try to escape if he is certain of death.

If the first to try is certain of death, then nobody will be the first to try. My solution works even if the prisoners are aware I only have 1 bullet.

Actually your soulution is heavily dependent on an assumption:

Tell them you will shoot the first one attempting to escape.
Since the first to attempt to escape is certain of death, nobody will be the first to attempt an escape.

That the first to escape with be certain of death. That your shot would be fatal
If I was in that scenario, and my own life is on the line (in which case its permissible for me [morally speaking] to kill), I would kill one of them off the bat, an actual fatal shot to the head, because it'll create the illusion that I am capable of consistently doing this

It's all about their perception of you. Not what you are or aren't capable of
What they think you are
The illusion that every shot would indeed be fatal

@greycel would you be the first to try an escape if I told you that I will shoot the first one who tries?

No, you would try to encourage others to make the first attempt and take the bullet. Under a theoretical situation, it will leave you all in a stalemate with nobody wanting to make the first move and face certain death. Thereby solving the riddle.

Details like: 'that 1 bullet not causing a fatal wound' is argueing about irrelevancies which the riddle is not about and is likely exactly the thinking process that this riddle is designed to (de)select for.

I wouldn't go about to directly attack the guy, I'd create a diversion to maximise my chances... but if I was left with two options.. either to attack head on or to sit there and wait it out, I would 100% hatch a plan where we all attack at once
That's how wars happen too
Or the soldiers who'd be the first to go up the ladders during a siege, even though there was a pretty much certain death for many of the first people (not just 1 with a gamble)

A bullet isn't bad, unless it's fatal. I'd rather take the risk and have my chance at freedom
Also it's important to know your audience. You are dealing with emotionally charged guys, who act on impulse and have been likely brought up in gang-related environments where a person who is seen deserve-worthy of respect keeps it
You put them in their place, they will stay in their place

This riddle does include those "irrelevancies". You can't gloss over with assumptions, it's all about whether this is feasible in reality
What would you do if you were there yourself

 

[greycel]

Yes someone could try to do so, actions have more psychological effect than talk, killing one first is doing the same while proving the point to the murderers, just by talking you are creating a schrodinger's cat scenario where you are uncertain if you will actually kill someone if he tries to escape

Exactly

 

[AutistTruecel]

This writing is fire but what if the escapee wins? If you kill him then entropy will start and everyone will try to escape

the first escapee shouldn’t succeed, because according to the rules, they won’t escape if they are certain of death. And the escapee knows that if they try fleeing, their partner will kill them. And the partner knows that if the escapee escapes, he will be shot, and to save himself will kill the escapee. So neither of them will attempt to escape

 

[PsychoDsk]

not even a single molecule, my brain is too cursed to even think about it for a sec

 

[greycel]

And the escapee knows that if they try fleeing, their captor will kill them

Assumption

 

[greycel]

@RICHCELDOM
The thing with this riddle is, if you were actually in this situation you'd be fucked
Because killing somebody off the bat will just buy you some more time to be alive overall

Eventually these emotionally unstable guys would act out or push the boundaries (metaphorically and literally) and cross the line, where you will be forced to shoot one of them as they are too close to you (have stepped within the proximity you said they couldn't), at which point they'll find out you have no bullets

They'll do this much earlier if you haven't killed one of them off and instilled that fear into them

If I was the captor, I would have them fight to the death in 1 on 1 bouts with each other and promise freedom to the last, and then kill the last the guy

The riddle was to prevent them from escaping, not to prevent them from dying
(RIP to their souls though)

 

[Deleted member 67663]

You only have one bullet, but don't use it at all, instead you are going to threaten them with that bullet that their life is under your hands and you could easily end their life. Its basically signaling a message that you have more bullets than what you have, and they try to escape, they will ALL think their life is at danger.

 

[nevermind2]

Make a list say you shoot every person that escape and if multiple escape you shoot the first one on the list so noone on the list can escape cause the first one have certain death so its the next one etc etc. so noone can escape

 

[Deleted member 17578]

Actually your soulution is heavily dependent on an assumption:

That the first to escape with be certain of death. That your shot would be fatal
If I was in that scenario, and my own life is on the line (in which case its permissible for me [morally speaking] to kill), I would kill one of them off the bat, an actual fatal shot to the head, because it'll create the illusion that I am capable of consistently doing this

It's all about their perception of you. Not what you are or aren't capable of
What they think you are
The illusion that every shot would indeed be fatal


I wouldn't go about to directly attack the guy, I'd create a diversion to maximise my chances... but if I was left with two options.. either to attack head on or to sit there and wait it out, I would 100% hatch a plan where we all attack at once
That's how wars happen too
Or the soldiers who'd be the first to go up the ladders during a siege, even though there was a pretty much certain death for many of the first people (not just 1 with a gamble)

A bullet isn't bad, unless it's fatal. I'd rather take the risk and have my chance at freedom
Also it's important to know your audience. You are dealing with emotionally charged guys, who act on impulse and have been likely brought up in gang-related environments where a person who is seen deserve-worthy of respect keeps it
You put them in their place, they will stay in their place

This riddle does include those "irrelevancies". You can't gloss over with assumptions, it's all about whether this is feasible in reality
What would you do if you were there yourself

Then what solution do you have? You are just 1 guy with a gun having to avoid 100 prisoners from escaping from a field.

There are no prison walls, there is no barbed wire, nothing. Once people start running they get out of sight within 30 seconds and you can't even shoot them anymore.
It's an impossible job unless you use the rules of the riddle the way I did.

Your solution was what, shoot one guy to show your ability to kill people? It makes zero sense. Why are these people even prisoners for you in a field, if they didn't believe you have the ability to kill them? And how would killing one guy make them believe they have a non-zero chance at escape?

Would love to hear another solution if someone has one.

 

[greycel]

Then what solution do you have? You are just 1 guy with a gun having to avoid 100 prisoners from escaping from a field.

@RICHCELDOM
The thing with this riddle is, if you were actually in this situation you'd be fucked
Because killing somebody off the bat will just buy you some more time to be alive overall

Eventually these emotionally unstable guys would act out or push the boundaries (metaphorically and literally) and cross the line, where you will be forced to shoot one of them as they are too close to you (have stepped within the proximity you said they couldn't), at which point they'll find out you have no bullets

They'll do this much earlier if you haven't killed one of them off and instilled that fear into them

If I was the captor, I would have them fight to the death in 1 on 1 bouts with each other and promise freedom to the last, and then kill the last the guy

The riddle was to prevent them from escaping, not to prevent them from dying
(RIP to their souls though)