Can you solve the rebel supplies riddle

你能解決叛軍補(bǔ)給之謎嗎

來(lái)源視頻

You’re overseeing the delivery of crucial supplies to a rebel base deep in the heart of enemy territory.?

To get past Imperial customs, all packages must follow a strict protocol: if a box is marked with an even number on the bottom, it must be sealed with a red top.

你正在監(jiān)管關(guān)鍵物資 到反叛基地的運(yùn)送，基地位于敵軍營(yíng)地的深處。

若要通過(guò)帝國(guó)海關(guān)，所有包裹 必須嚴(yán)格遵循一條規(guī)定：如果一個(gè)箱子的底部標(biāo)有一個(gè)偶數(shù)，那么它的頂部必須是紅色的封口。

The boxes are already being loaded onto the transport when you receive an urgent message.?

One of the four boxes was sealed incorrectly, but they lost track of which one.?

All the boxes are still on the conveyor belt.?

Two are facing down: one marked with a four, and one with a seven.?

The other two are facing up: one with a black top, another with a red one.

正當(dāng)箱子在被放到運(yùn)輸工具上時(shí)，你收到了一條緊急消息。

四個(gè)箱子中的一個(gè) 封裝是不正確的，但他們不知道是哪一個(gè)。

所有的箱子都還在傳送帶上。

兩個(gè)是朝下放的：一個(gè)標(biāo)著 4，一個(gè)標(biāo)著 7.

另外兩個(gè)是朝上放置的：一個(gè)的頂部是黑色的，另一個(gè)是紅色的。

You know that any violation of the protocol will get the entire shipment confiscated and put your allies in grave danger.?

But any boxes you pull off for inspection won’t make it onto this delivery run, depriving the rebels of critically needed supplies.?

The transport leaves in a few moments, with or without its cargo.?

Which box or boxes should you grab off the conveyor belt?

Pause the video now if you want to figure it out for yourself!?

Answer in: 3?

Answer in: 2?

Answer in: 1

你知道任何規(guī)定違反會(huì)導(dǎo)致整皮貨物被沒收， 讓盟友陷入危險(xiǎn)。

但任何你拿下來(lái)檢查的箱子 就趕不上這次運(yùn)輸了，致使反叛軍無(wú)法得到急需的物資。

運(yùn)輸工具馬上就要離開了， 無(wú)論是否有貨物。、

那你應(yīng)該從傳送帶取下來(lái) 哪個(gè)或哪幾個(gè)箱子？

如果你想自己搞清答案 就在這里暫停視頻！

答案即將公布：3

答案即將公布：2

答案即將公布：1

It may seem like you need to inspect all four boxes to see what’s on the other side of each.

But in fact, only two of them matter.

Let’s look at the protocol again.?

All it says is that even-numbered boxes must have a red top.?

It doesn’t say anything about odd-numbered boxes, so we can just ignore the box marked with a seven.?

What about the box with a red top??

Don’t we need to check that the number on the bottom is even?

你可能覺得你需要拿走全部4個(gè)箱子以檢查另外一面的內(nèi)容。

但其實(shí)，你只需要看兩個(gè)箱子。

讓我們回顧一下規(guī)定。

它只說(shuō)了偶數(shù)箱子 必須要有紅色封頂。

它并沒有對(duì)奇數(shù)箱子 做出任何規(guī)定，所以我們可以忽略 標(biāo)著 7 的那個(gè)箱子。

那么，那個(gè)紅箱子呢？

我們難道不需要檢查 它的底部是偶數(shù)嗎？

As it turns out, we don’t.?

The protocol says that if a box has an even number, then it should have a red top.?

It doesn’t say that only boxes with even numbers can have red tops, or that a box with a red top must have an even number.?

The requirement only goes in one direction.?

So we don’t need to check the box with the red lid.

We do, however, need to check the one with the black lid, to make sure it wasn’t incorrectly placed on an even-numbered box.

事實(shí)證明，確實(shí)不需要。

規(guī)定說(shuō)的是如果一個(gè)箱子標(biāo)著偶數(shù)，那么它的封頂應(yīng)該為紅色。

它并沒有規(guī)定 只有偶數(shù)箱子可以有紅色封頂，或者一個(gè)紅色封頂?shù)南渥?必須有偶數(shù)標(biāo)記。

規(guī)定只要求了單方向的。

所以我們不需要檢查 紅色封頂?shù)哪莻€(gè)箱子。

不過(guò)我們確實(shí)需要檢查 黑色封頂?shù)南渥觼?lái)確保沒有不小心把黑色封頂 放到了偶數(shù)箱子上。

If you initially assumed the rules imply a symmetrical match between the number on the box and the type of lid, you’re not alone.?

That error is so common, we even have a name for it: affirming the consequent, or the fallacy of the converse.

This fallacy wrongly assumes that just because a certain condition is necessary for a given result, it must also be sufficient for it.?

For instance, having an atmosphere is a necessary condition for being a habitable planet.

But this doesn’t mean that it’s a sufficient condition – planets like Venus have atmospheres but lack other criteria for habitability.

如果你一開始假定了 規(guī)定意味著箱子上的數(shù)字和封頂顏色 是一個(gè)對(duì)稱的對(duì)應(yīng)關(guān)系，你不是一個(gè)人

這個(gè)錯(cuò)誤常見到 我們甚至有一個(gè)名詞來(lái)形容它：肯定后件或逆命題謬誤。

這種謬誤錯(cuò)誤的假設(shè)了只因?yàn)橐粋€(gè)條件 是一個(gè)后果的必要條件那它一定是充分的。

舉例來(lái)說(shuō)，大氣層是一個(gè)可居住的星球的必要條件。

但這不意味著它是一個(gè)充分條件——水星或其它星球也有大氣層， 但是缺少其它居住的條件。

If that still seems hard to wrap your head around, let’s look at a slightly different problem.

Imagine the boxes contain groceries.?

You see one marked for shipment to a steakhouse and one to a vegetarian restaurant.?

Then you see two more boxes turned upside down: one labeled as containing meat, and another as containing onions.?

Which ones do you need to check?

Well, it’s easy – make sure the meat isn’t being shipped to the vegetarian restaurant, and that the box going there doesn’t contain meat.?

The onions can go to either place, and the box bound for the steakhouse can contain either product.

如果這還是有點(diǎn)難理解，讓我們看一個(gè)不太一樣的問(wèn)題。、

想象一些裝著雜貨的袋子。

你看到一個(gè)標(biāo)著運(yùn)往牛排店還有一個(gè)運(yùn)往素食餐廳。

然后你看到另外兩個(gè)反著放的箱子：一個(gè)標(biāo)著含有肉，另一個(gè)標(biāo)著含有洋蔥。

你需要檢查哪個(gè)呢？

這很容易——確保肉不會(huì)被運(yùn)到素食餐廳，以及運(yùn)到素食餐廳的箱子里沒有肉。

洋蔥去哪里都可以，而運(yùn)往牛排店的箱子 可以含有任意一種食材。

Why does this scenario seem easier?

Formally, it’s the same problem – two possible conditions for the top of the box, and two for the bottom.

But in this case, they’re based on familiar real-world needs, and we easily understand that while vegetarians only eat vegetables, they’re not the only ones who do so.

為什么這個(gè)情況感覺更容易？

本質(zhì)上，它是同一個(gè)問(wèn)題——箱子上面有兩種可能底下也有兩種。

但這個(gè)問(wèn)題是基于 我們現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中熟悉的需求所以我們很容易可以理解 雖然素食主義者只吃蔬菜，但是他們不是唯一吃蔬菜的人。

In the original problem, the rules seemed more arbitrary, and when they’re abstracted that way, the logical connections become harder to see.?

In your case, you’ve managed to get enough supplies through to enable the resistance to fight another day. And you did it by thinking outside the box – both sides of it.

在原來(lái)的問(wèn)題中， 規(guī)定看起來(lái)更隨便一些，而當(dāng)它們被抽象成這樣時(shí)，就更難看出隱含的邏輯關(guān)系。

在你所處的情形中，你成功的 讓足量的物資運(yùn)送過(guò)去以支撐反叛軍繼續(xù)戰(zhàn)斗。而你能解決這個(gè)問(wèn)題，就是因?yàn)?你的思考“跳出了箱子”——它的兩面。