Nontransitive DicediceFinder
OverviewNontransitive dice are sets of 3 or more dice, we will label D1,D2,...DN, such that P(D1 > D2) > .5, P(D2 > D3) > .5, ... P(DN-1 > DN), P(DN, D1). In other words dice whose probabilities act like rock-paper-scissors, each dice has one that will beat it. The original problem that got Chris and myself started on this was the God Einstein Oppenheimer Dice Puzzle which paints the numbers 1-18 on 3, 6 sided dice. The question we had is what is the list of all possible dice that solve this problem. It turns out to be a somewhat difficult program to conceive efficiently. Number of total diceIt is important to first know how many total sets of 3 dice there are without considering which of those are nontransitive, since we will need to check every set, and we want to avoid repeats. We can treat the dice as unordered sets, since the ordering does not effect the probabilities. Note that ignoring the fact the sets are unordered greatly increases the cases we have to test: ![]() Programming ConsiderationsThe main goal of this program was to keep the execution time low, that means not checking repeated sets. The textual description of the algorithm is as follows:
Interesting Sets
There are two sets, each containing both the lowest and highest possible face counts:
There are 15 ways to get all dice to have a probability of 7/12, which is the highest probability you can get for all 3 dice: (1,2,9,14,15,16)(3,4,5,10,17,18)(6,7,8,11,12,13) (1,2,11,12,13,18)(3,4,5,14,15,16)(6,7,8,9,10,17) (1,6,7,8,17,18)(2,9,10,11,12,13)(3,4,5,14,15,16) (1,6,11,12,13,14)(2,3,4,15,16,17)(5,7,8,9,10,18) (1,7,10,12,13,14)(2,3,4,15,16,17)(5,6,8,9,11,18) (1,7,11,12,13,14)(2,3,4,15,16,17)(5,6,8,9,10,18) (1,8,9,12,13,14)(2,3,4,15,16,17)(5,6,7,10,11,18) (1,8,10,11,13,14)(2,3,4,15,16,17)(5,6,7,9,12,18) (1,8,10,12,13,14)(2,3,4,15,16,17)(5,6,7,9,11,18) (1,8,11,12,13,14)(2,3,4,15,16,17)(5,6,7,9,10,18) (1,9,10,11,12,14)(2,3,4,15,16,17)(5,6,7,8,13,18) (1,9,10,11,13,14)(2,3,4,15,16,17)(5,6,7,8,12,18) (1,9,10,12,13,14)(2,3,4,15,16,17)(5,6,7,8,11,18) (1,9,11,12,13,14)(2,3,4,15,16,17)(5,6,7,8,10,18) (1,10,11,12,13,14)(2,3,4,15,16,17)(5,6,7,8,9,18)Also of interest is that each optimal set contains at least one die with a sum of 57 which is the (sum(1 to 18))/3. Source Code
ConclusionsThis was a fun little exercise that took a bit of initial experimentation to efficiently solve. Going through every permutation would have been near impossible since there would be 18! which is roughly 6.4 quadrillion sets. And then trying to get actual unique answers out of this would be horrendous. The total number of nontransitive dice with 1-18 uniquely placed on them ends up being 10,705 which was higher than expected. Last Edited: 2010-10-17 12:01:28
+ Add a comment 5fb0fc757d16924d74b391b2a873f3e62012-02-22 23:17:06.747627 UTC Sergio Giro said (2010-10-25 02:47:26): Thanks for the pointer, I'll take a look. While Googling, I found that the theorem referenced is in http://www.jstor.org/pss/2974903, which derives it straighforwardly from the Steinhaus-Trybula paradox (as far as I could see from the first page). It's a pity that a lot of related papers are in old journals for which I don't have electronic subscription, for instance: H. STEINHAUS AND S. TRYBULA, On a paradox in applied probability Thanks again Gavin Black said (2010-10-25 02:47:00): Sergio, there is a quick paper with some proofs available at: http://www.edwardothorp.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/nontransitivedic e.doc I would think types of proofs involving non-transitive sets would fall under the category of combinatoric analysis. A good book or course in that subject would probably give you the tools necessary to study it further. Sergio Giro said (2010-10-25 02:46:38): Hi, I would like to read more about nontransitive dices, in particular (but not exclusively) upper bounds for probabilities as, for instance, J. Siehler says "It is a theorem that at least one of the probabilities must be less than (\sqrt{5}-1)/2". Any pointers will be greatly appreciated. Best, Sergio Jim said (2010-10-25 02:46:10): The probabilities of the last item in your optimum list (1,10,11,12,13,14)(2,3,4,15,16,17)(5,6,7,8,9,18) are not 7/12. These are equivalent to Rowett Dice A: 3 3 3 3 3 6 B: 2 2 2 5 5 5 C: 1 4 4 4 4 4 where P(A > B) = 7/12, P(B > C) = 7/12 and P(C > A) = 25/36. It is true to say the probabilities are at least 7/12. The optimum set of three non-transitive dice would have probabilities of at least 0.618 (golden ratio conjugate). Gavin Black said (2010-10-25 02:45:46): Em they are transitive since: A beats C with a 20 / 36 chance C beats B with a 28 / 36 chance B beats A with a 21 / 36 chance e.g. A > C > B > A J. Siehler said (2010-10-25 02:45:22): Ah, I just noticed that all three sum to 100! That's a nice bonus. J. Siehler said (2010-10-25 02:45:00): I modified your program to search for interesting triples of 8-sided dice, and came up with a unique set with A > B > C > A and a 39/64 probability in each case. (There are three other solutions in which all three probabilities are >= 39/64). It is a theorem that at least one of the probabilities must be less than (\sqrt{5}-1)/2 so it would be impossible to get all three probabilities >= 40/64. Here's the nice one: A={1,2,3,16,18,19,20,21}, B={8,10,11,12,13,14,15,17} and C={4,5,6,7,9,22,23,24}, Gavin Black said (2010-10-25 02:44:35): Em they are transitive since: A beats C with a 20 / 36 chance C beats B with a 28 / 36 chance B beats A with a 21 / 36 chance e.g. A > C > B > A Em said (2010-10-25 02:44:07): Aeron, I think those dice are Transitive!!! (C doesn't beat A the majority of the time) Gavin Black said (2010-10-25 02:43:44): Thanks for the grammar catch, updated the post. Tracy Hall said (2010-10-25 02:43:08): Nice work. I wondered whether it was possible to get better than the usually-cited 5/9 probability, and this does better by 1/36. I also wondered whether anyone had bothered to write the simple program that would examine all possibilities. Many mice but one mouse; many dice but one die. So actually it would read "at least one die". Gavin Black said (2010-10-25 02:42:37): You are correct, thanks for the catch. I updated it to say at least one dice in a given optimal set has a sum of 57. Aeron said (2010-10-25 02:42:19): (1,10,11,12,13,14)(2,3,4,15,16,17)(5,6,7,8,9,18)
Sum up as 61,57,53. |
Posts
Source Code