I like Grand Dizzy's solution for its simplicity and elegance. Personally, I would just make computer program to do the job if I needed to. Unlike mathematicians, though, we computer programmers don't have many friends, so it's not really an issue.
Thanks for this a million times. I keep coming back to this for GrandDizzy's solution, which has turned out to be very useful in assigning "Secret Pen Pals" for people on these summer camps I occasionally take part in. I also enjoy immensely the sheer mathematics and the way you two present it!
So, I've been a little obsessed with this problem. I've improved on this solution by making it more repeatable. My solution is basically the same thing, but instead of cards cut in half, one puts cards in envelopes (still names on the envelope, and names on the cards). So the solution goes like this: all the players write their names on and envelope, and on a card, they place the card in their envelope (or folder/etc). the pack of envelopes/folders are shuffled and then the card and envelopes are separated in identical sequences. then the top car/envelope is put on the bottom, and then the cards are put back into the envelopes in the same sequence. The pack of envelopes are then shuffled once more and then re-distributed around to the players, so each player has their own envelope, and the name in that envelope is the target. I really like this one because it's repeatable and strong against cheating. The entire process can be done in the open, so nobody is left alone. I also hope I've explained this sufficiently enough, and I had come up with this solution AFTER I saw this video, so not entirely my own solution.
andrewxc1335 that's so true, my current math teacher is very nice - I think mostly because the class is doing relatively well and we're all pretty well behaved... compared to previous years ahahaha. At the end of class sometimes she'll play videos of maths songs on youtube and stuff haha
+Mario Morales Secret Santa doesn't require that there be only one single cycle, because there's only one gift being given. The only requirement is that people don't end up with their own names. Assassins require the single cycle because links keep getting eliminated and you want it to end up with just 2 players trying to kill each other.
James, I always enjoy your videos and Matt's videos. But together, much more so. Your comedic chemistry is spot on. Ladies and gentlemen, may I present the 21st century Fry and Laurie.
I’ve followed Stand Up Maths and Numberphile for years, but RUclips has only just started recommending James’ channel to me, and all I gotta say is “Dawwwwww, look at how adorable baby James and Matt are!”
I think you're seeing this way too narrow here.. every year, we gather the family and decide who buys a present for who on christmas (instead of a present from and to everyone). These systems help out great with that too :)
@BlayerX I think I see where you're going with this. Thanks. Yes I think my method can be made to work, and I defend it as mathematically interesting! :)
I am going to have to play this now, and it is a good way to learn the names of people if you have them place their name tags on. Just make sure that when the two stacks are combined after cutting, that you do it consistently, always left card on top of right, or visa versa.
i dont know if youll ever read, but: I've got it: have each player have their own hat and set of names. when a player draws someones name, they run through every hat taking one name from each. (because) each persons' hat doesn't include their own name, the selecting player removes 1: the ability for someone to pick the same target and b-the ability for their target to choose the current selector. in the end the last player has only one name in their hat, which is the name of the first player. to expand this, everyone is grouped into the closest division of 10, so for 30 players, 3 groups of 10, 32 players get 10, 11, 11 not 3x10 and 2, when exchanges are done, each group draws straws and one person goes out of the groups, so for 100, this leaves 10 people. this process repeats, each time dividing by approximately by 10 until only one group meets together. when you meet at a group you submit your target's name rather than your own, opening the loop, as if cutting two chains and linking the common ends, you submit one person from your chain, and link up to someone else on another. the potential to cheat lies in with group sizes that cause smaller and smaller meeting spaces, like two people swapping targets, so avoid 2-4x a power of 10, and all will be fair.
I think you could use the Cut-Deck system to make the secret pairs you need for your double look up system. I like your double lookup because it demonstrates the way the formula works.
if this was the grand final of the world series of assassin, wouldn't you just hire someone to generate the secret eight cycle? i thought the whole point of these solutions was for games among friends.
Same reflexion. The solution of Matt was brilliant, I thought. He defined randomness and secrecy by going from naturals to complex (cutting the card to put an extra-dimension: adding i between 1 and -1). The final solution was mostly the same, just more steps so not optimal in IT.
I have a solution that I'm almost certain will work but scales up horribly. Let's say there's 4 players A,B,C,D. There are 24 possible 4 cycles/combos (I think );. One cycle would be B->D->A->C->B, So get 4 cards whose both sides are blank , on top of 1 card write 'B' and on it's bottom write B's target (from last sentence that would be 'D').Do the rest of the 3 cards to follow the listed cycle, the player's name on top of card , the target on bottom ,( if done right you end with writing C on top of last card , B on that card's bottom) . Keeping all targets facing down group the 4 cards with something generic like an elastic, clips, ect. It would probably be a good idea to have a blank card at bottom of pile to stop people seeing >later< the target at the pile's bottom. Now the fun(?) part , repeat all those last steps for EVERY ONE of the 23 other possible 4-cycles!!! You should then have 24 4-card piles. You should probably try to make each pile appear as similar to each other as possible especially by having the 24 pile tops have all the same name. Put all 24 piles in a bag and have someone pull a pile at random. Player whose name is on top of top card on pile grabs it without allowing anyone else to see that player's target (which is written on that card's bottom). The 3 other players do the same, grabbing card on pile's top when it has their name. Keep players from seeing the 23 leftover piles because players may then be able to make deductions about their opponent's roles.
I almost stopped the video to write that I liked Matt's solution best, although I wouldn't want to cut up a good set of cards. So I would make 8 pieces of paper with a player's name on each one on the top and the bottom. The winning idea was a lot like a combination of Matt's idea and mine.
One of the annoying things about this puzzle is the inheritance part where after you kill your target, you inherit his/her kill. We used to do something a little different when playing pool with more than 2 players. It's simple and quick. Although with 15 balls, because it's uneven, it would help add to the confusion making it a much more enjoyable experience. Mind you, in our game, it was a hit list, with no identity for yourself. Basically, this is how it works: -you have 15 numbers (since there are 15 balls) -you pop the written numbers into a jar -each player pulls one out one at a time -the objective was to sink all your targets 2 players = 7 targets each, 1 left in jar (unknown value) 3 players = 5 targets each 4 players = 3 targets each, 3 left in jar (unknown values) 5 players = 3 targets each 6 players = 2 targets each, 3 left in jar (unknown values) 7 players = 2 targets each, 1 left in jar (unknown value) ... [balls] divided by [players], [remainder] stays in jar.
@antichrist65535 We did watch it, it's nearly perfect (similar to GrandDizzy's) but we were able to predict who was killing who. I can see you've already seen that problem and fixed it.
Maybe we could improve a bit Grandizzy's idea? Every player gets a unique random number. Then, instead of writing every player's name twice in the cards, they receive a blank card. In this card, they write their numbers on the left side and their names on the back of the right side, putting it in an envelope afterwards. The sorting proceeds like mentioned in the video; but everyone gets to see the numbers. Since every player knows only his/her number, the cycle remains secret.
Oh my word... I got picked as an OK example - I think I'm going to faint with excitement! The solution you guys picked as the best though is definitely the best - simple and elegant.
I used a similar solution to the winner to make a Secret Santa program that we have been using for many years, but I had no idea how it would work without a computer. That card thing is bloody brilliant :-) ps, My computerised solution has become a lot more complicated over the years starting with the year my brother in law got my brother's name to give a gift to, and my sister got my brother in law's name... He was keen to discuss presents with her, but, somehow, she was less keen on discussing the present she was buying.
Hi Fellas, and ladies. There is a game a bit like this I played at my local gaming store. It is called The Resistance produced by Indie Boards and Cards. If you are interested it it is fun game for five to ten people. The first game we played I got to keep the game after getting paired with a strong partner and we rolled for it.
Just say that the blue deck is bigger than the red deck and so now you have a sequence from 1 to 104. If the number of players is something random between 3 to 104 just take out all the cards representing numbers bigger than the number of players. Now shuffle the cards and give one card to each person in a hidden way: like putting the hand of both players under the table (or using an envelope). Do you want to scale it up to bigger number of players? Just use decks of cards with pantone colors.
Perfect timing on the sirens in the end! No wonder when you talk about 100 people going to be assassinated. Isn't Matt's solution essentially the same as Dizzy's? (except that Dizzy's is more elegant AND you still wear your name as a badge ;) )
As I wrote below my solution scales badly. For 5 players you need a bag with 120 5-card piles, ( I think !). There is an interesting feature to my solution though that may be harder to achieve with other solutions. That would be if for some reason you wanted to increase or decrease the chances of certain cycles appearing. You could say add copies of the piles/cycles you want to have an increased chance of appearing to the bag. To be more clear if you're playing with 4 players there should 24 different piles in your bag. Copy one of the piles and put that copy in the bag. Your chance of getting that particular cycle has now increased from 1/24 to 2/25.
The last one is the easy solution but I like the card one better, because its more mysterious. You have to see the person from the front to know if he/she's your target or not :P It'd be cool if you have to hide it till you are far away from other people, it will give everyone a headstart :)
You can simplify this using a computer if you write a program for it. A types their name in. Computer knows not to give A the target A. For argument sake computer gives A the target B. B types their name in. Computer knows not to give B the target B. Computer also knows not to give B the target A. Computer gives B target C. And so on..
If we're worried about the game host cheating, then I think the envelope solution might be a little better than GrandDizzy's solution, since the person who shuffles and staples the cards can peek at all the pairings. With the envelopes if you seal them, then any tampering will become obvious.
There is a Problem with that winer solution (by Grand Dizzy): Lets assume the order of names is ABCDEFGH the other stack will be BCDEFGHA. The one who puts the names to Pairs in the end could remember the order of names. Lets say he picks the name from the 1st stack as public name and the other as "target". Since the 2 stacks have the same order only shifted by one, the 2nd public name will always be the target for the 1st person, the 3rd public name will be the target of the 2nd persond etc. It also works if you take the 2nd stack as public name. I hope you understand what i mean
derZonk that's why they don't look at them until they've been stapled together and reshuffled. From start to finish the only time they get to see the names on the cards is before the first shuffle, and after the last. If the other players watch them to make sure they don't cheat and look at the order of names like you suggested. then nobody in the group will know the cycle.
I have a comment about the game's mechanics, and I haven't read all the comments, so I apologize if this has already been said. It seems to me that if I didn't know who was supposed to kill me, I could simply run away from everyone whom I knew was playing, except specifically the person I was supposed to kill. Or lock myself in a room until the smoke cleared, then emerge to kill my target and win the game. But anyway, the solution was brilliant and might perhaps have other applications.
My solution is to write a short program on a calculator (or you could probably find someone who knows how to write a smartphone app). After it sorts the people out by using a process similar to the card methods in the video, it displays one name, that person is handed the calculator and presses enter to see who their target is. They press enter again to clear the screen and display the name of the next person whose target is to be assigned. The calculator is handed around to each of the players, and if somebody tries to cheat by looking at someone else's target, then it will be easy to tell because then there will be at least one person who did not get the calculator passed to them. If somebody is caught cheating, then simply re-run the program and pass around the calculator again. No need to waste so much paper to redo the assignments like some of the other solutions have you doing.
Get a pizza cut into 8 slices. Put it on a lazy susan. Everyone sits around it and puts a slip of paper with their name on it under the slice in front of them. Spin the pizza as fast and as unaccountably as possible. Perhaps have 1/2 players blindfolded, the other 1/2 spin as much as they want, then the two groups switch. Then each player takes the slice of pizza before them along with the slip. Eat pizza and keep the slip. Pizza won't scale to 100 but a big wheel with 100 sealed boxes is ok.
Yes, I could program this into a computer within a couple of hours, including a cheat-proof interface where everyone turns away from the screen for each player to receive their target in random order. Object stacks are counted using an INT value, so the upscale limit is 65536. In fact, that would make an awesome online game.
dodekeract No, what I described was the computer serving as a completely impartial referee/game-master. Basically it randomizes the targets and presents them in a way that each player only receives their target's name, with no other information leaked. Very easy to program. In fact, the interface would be harder than the core rpogramming itself.
dodekeract They didn't mention anything about a ninth entity. Their challenge was to have a system that did not involve a ninth HUMAN. The cards are a ninth entity, just like the computer program I proposed. If they had forbidden any kind of ninth entity, then cards would also have been forbidden.
+dodekeract why should be the computer considered an entity while envelopes are not? It is just a tool, maybe more complicated than pen and paper, but still a tool.
+dodekeract I have my doubts about human brain being FLAWLESSLY simulated on supercomputers. There is a lot going on in human brain and there might be some quantum things going on, which current computers cannot simulate very well. All that aside we were discussing program that would have nothing to do with how human brain works:)
Well, this "best" solution is good, but better would be if we connect card in each pair with 2-sides tape in top and bottom (name would have to be in the middle) and shuffle again, and then turn over, and everyone picks his/her name. Then all process can be done with all people and there's no situation to cheat. Next, all people can check who they have to kill separately (in different rooms or something). My solution was that we draw numbers in 8 cards, then everyone pick one number without showing them. Then, everyone have to write his/her name on the other side of card with number (or use new card) and put all in the pile (names up), shuffle to avoid memorizing, turn mumber up and put on a table. Then people enter room by one and turn up his number + 1 card. You can only cheat by looking at other cards, but we can make situation that everyone can see, that players pick one card, but not what is in this card. I'm watching this assassin problem at 2017, and I'm fascinated about this game, so I had to make my solution.
+Josh O'fortune - Plus it fails the cheating requirement. You can figure out everyone's target, in the same way you figure out your own target. For example. Alice was secret partner with Dave. So you look up Dave, and then your target is the backside of one lower. But while she has the deck, she can just as easily look at Bob, turn his card around, see his partner and find his target. You can't have a player "referee" looking through the deck, since they'd see who you look at. Also even without cheating you always know you're safe from your 'secret partner'. Since your target is always 'one over' from you and your partner's card.
Sorry for answering one year late, but you are wrong. Your partner can be your target if your partner's card happens to be exactly one up in the pile:- Find your card.- Turn it over to reveal your partner- Find your partner's card- Go one down (so you end on your own card!)- Turn it over to reveal your target (but that is your partner)
Instead of names you could give colors: Every play receives a random number at the start. Then he draws his number from the pack and sees who you have to kill (target is written on the back) To make make it possible to have any target, you need to have all possible 8 circles prepared on separate decks from which you choose one at the start of the game... Which of course requires you to make 8! pack of cards. But after you made them you have never to do it ever again! Unless you want to play as 9
Any solution where one person can steal another's target or identity seems prone to cheating if the players don't keep their card on them at all times, which is why it seems better to set up a secret pool, which cannot be seen in full without being ruled as dead, instead setting up a way of retrieving only sparse details from something, which seems to me to suggest a website or something would be best served for this purpose. And James' pairing strategy fails since a player can calculate who is going to be trying to kill them by working backwards. It's not a secret 8-pair.
The major problem that people encounter with this is that they intuitively think that people have to keep their original names through the whole process. In other words, "Alice" must remain "Alice" for the the entirety of the process. Once you realize that you can actually rename people then the problem becomes trivial.
+WarpRulez - Who does the renaming? How will players know what they are renamed to? Will their target be renamed? Who pairs targets to their assassin? Do they know who's who? If not, how do they prevent smaller cycles? What prevents players from figuring out the system behind the renaming? I'm sorry, trivial you said?
The winning solution is the same as Mat's. But instead of cards using paper with names. The winning solution is easier, you're using names, you dont have to look for the id card of the person and find your person.
5:46. that seems very absurd, like you said it has to apply to when you have 100 people playing and still be practical. lets say you have 100 people playing, that means you need 100 cards. a height of a normal deck of playing cards is 8.89 cm * that by 100 equaling to 889 cm or 8.89 m. this is ridiculous.
A normal deck of playing cards does not consist of only 1 card, it consists of 52. Which means the heigh of the deck is more like 17 - 18cm, not 9 meters. Edit: My brain stopped working for a bit, thinking yours did. I see what you mean now, and i also realised a stacked deck isnt 8cm high, im stupid. Sorry!
+Jukka-Pekka Tuominen incorrect, Matt's solution requires everyone in the game to wear their "card" as a badge because nobody's names are used. The winning solution is the best by far by all measures.
+Jukka-Pekka Tuominen Yes and no, you are right only if someone FOLDS the cards after cutting them very carefully in such a way that one half is visible publicly (always the same half). Otherwise you will see all the names of all the pairs as you are searching for yours. I would say the logistics of having to tape and cut and fold the cards is too finicky, it would be too easy to fumble something and reveal accidentally. The best solution is best because it's logistically easy and the entire process is also carried out publicly, especially the handing out of the names at the end so that the game master cannot cheat and look under cards before handing them out.
+Lorentz the annoying Llama It's not the same as one of the basic criteria was to not generate smaller cycles - drawing from a hat means that a can draw b, b draws c, c draws a forming a smaller circle. All players have to make up one big. Watch the original video again describing the problem!
Maybe I'm not understanding the complexity. First, in your example, the second shuffle (once they are stapled) doesn't seem necessary. Next, Why not just number everyone 1-8 and then ask someone outside the game to randomly assign a number to each person (1-8)?
A tasty solution, but there is no guarantee that an 8 cycle will be generated from this method. You could even pick your own name if you end up with your original slice.
computer program created by third party host of the game. enter your name, program randomly selects the targets so you can check add a password for secret sake.
To take it a step further(and more assassin like), after entering your names into the computer you are emailed your target. No need for passwords and no one can cheat.
RMDan Right, and it's a great solution. But I believe one of their criteria were that there can only be the 8 people involved. If there was a 9th "admin" (even if it's a computer) it doesn't fit their conditions. Of course, the elimination of this 9th entity is what inspires the creativity, which is what they were going for. :)
+Bradley Wilson - No, you misunderstood. The criteria was that everyone has to be able to play. (i.e. No one is an "admin".) A computer program would just be an electronic version of the cards solution. Both "programs" do the same thing, only one manually and analogue, the other digitally. PS. Just realized how perfect this would be as a welcome week game. If you email them the target, and only give them a name. Students are forced to go around and meet and introduce themselves to other new students in order to find their targets.
I love James's commitment during the demonstration scene. He ran the whole way through.
he can run pretty damn fast
Dane Patton of course. As a mathematician he might had to deal with bullies in school. That teaches you to run. It thought me. 😉
I remember laughing myself out of my chair when I first saw that.
James and Matt found their inner Pythonians.
Hahaha, "Being mathematicians, we have a lot of friends".
I would love to do more with Matt, we'll work on it!
This comment aged well!
It's weird hearing them refer to him as "Jim"…
I like Grand Dizzy's solution for its simplicity and elegance.
Personally, I would just make computer program to do the job if I needed to. Unlike mathematicians, though, we computer programmers don't have many friends, so it's not really an issue.
4:14 : "Being mathematicians, we have a lot of friends." :D
James runs so much like the 10th doctor XD
Thanks for this a million times. I keep coming back to this for GrandDizzy's solution, which has turned out to be very useful in assigning "Secret Pen Pals" for people on these summer camps I occasionally take part in. I also enjoy immensely the sheer mathematics and the way you two present it!
So, I've been a little obsessed with this problem. I've improved on this solution by making it more repeatable. My solution is basically the same thing, but instead of cards cut in half, one puts cards in envelopes (still names on the envelope, and names on the cards). So the solution goes like this:
all the players write their names on and envelope, and on a card, they place the card in their envelope (or folder/etc). the pack of envelopes/folders are shuffled and then the card and envelopes are separated in identical sequences. then the top car/envelope is put on the bottom, and then the cards are put back into the envelopes in the same sequence. The pack of envelopes are then shuffled once more and then re-distributed around to the players, so each player has their own envelope, and the name in that envelope is the target.
I really like this one because it's repeatable and strong against cheating. The entire process can be done in the open, so nobody is left alone. I also hope I've explained this sufficiently enough, and I had come up with this solution AFTER I saw this video, so not entirely my own solution.
That winning solution is perfect! Very simple, concise and would easily work with larger numbers~
why cant my math teachers be this cool ;)
The problem is generally too much content, not enough time, and uncooperative students. :)
andrewxc1335 that's so true, my current math teacher is very nice - I think mostly because the class is doing relatively well and we're all pretty well behaved... compared to previous years ahahaha. At the end of class sometimes she'll play videos of maths songs on youtube and stuff haha
That long static cut of you running away cracked me up for some reason.
dodekeract I prefer American Dad, personally.
This would work great for a secret santa initiative at work, because you want a full, secret cycle so the presents can be handed in a chain.
+Mario Morales Secret Santa doesn't require that there be only one single cycle, because there's only one gift being given. The only requirement is that people don't end up with their own names. Assassins require the single cycle because links keep getting eliminated and you want it to end up with just 2 players trying to kill each other.
Mario Morales Numberphile actually did a video that applied this solution to Secret Santa.
I was just thinking. Isn't the winning solution here exactly the same as the Hannah "Deep" Fried secret Santa algorithm?
woah how did matt know i am in my underwear.
***** touche
+HueBearSong I'm a commando myself.
+Paul L I'm myself, commando.
I'm not usually in my underwear so this became very weird to me when he said it
Same here! =]
I wish I entered and got an honorable mention just so I could hear them try to pronounce my name. That would be glorious.
You get a like just for that running away shot.
he runs quite fast for a matematician :D
And stops just short of going off-screen. Haha! Should have run just a _little_ bit more...
Does he specialize in mate o matics ?
2:54 For some reason, i find this hilarious. And he reminds me the 10th doctor running in the distance.
2:10
I almost saw the Parker crack.
In fact, I AM watching in my underwear.
srwapo same here... how did he knew
Everyone who isn't naked or commando is in their underwear.
ME TOOOOO
James, I always enjoy your videos and Matt's videos. But together, much more so. Your comedic chemistry is spot on.
Ladies and gentlemen, may I present the 21st century Fry and Laurie.
I’ve followed Stand Up Maths and Numberphile for years, but RUclips has only just started recommending James’ channel to me, and all I gotta say is “Dawwwwww, look at how adorable baby James and Matt are!”
This seems to be Matt before he decided to have enthusiasm xD
Matt thinking "no, not worth it, he just too far away now"
i'm sad, i follow the 2 most lonely groups on the planet. gamers and math people
Same.
- from 4 years in the future
I think you're seeing this way too narrow here.. every year, we gather the family and decide who buys a present for who on christmas (instead of a present from and to everyone). These systems help out great with that too :)
@BlayerX I think I see where you're going with this. Thanks. Yes I think my method can be made to work, and I defend it as mathematically interesting! :)
I am going to have to play this now, and it is a good way to learn the names of people if you have them place their name tags on. Just make sure that when the two stacks are combined after cutting, that you do it consistently, always left card on top of right, or visa versa.
i dont know if youll ever read, but: I've got it: have each player have their own hat and set of names. when a player draws someones name, they run through every hat taking one name from each. (because) each persons' hat doesn't include their own name, the selecting player removes 1: the ability for someone to pick the same target and b-the ability for their target to choose the current selector. in the end the last player has only one name in their hat, which is the name of the first player.
to expand this, everyone is grouped into the closest division of 10, so for 30 players, 3 groups of 10, 32 players get 10, 11, 11 not 3x10 and 2, when exchanges are done, each group draws straws and one person goes out of the groups, so for 100, this leaves 10 people. this process repeats, each time dividing by approximately by 10 until only one group meets together. when you meet at a group you submit your target's name rather than your own, opening the loop, as if cutting two chains and linking the common ends, you submit one person from your chain, and link up to someone else on another. the potential to cheat lies in with group sizes that cause smaller and smaller meeting spaces, like two people swapping targets, so avoid 2-4x a power of 10, and all will be fair.
I think you could use the Cut-Deck system to make the secret pairs you need for your double look up system. I like your double lookup because it demonstrates the way the formula works.
if this was the grand final of the world series of assassin, wouldn't you just hire someone to generate the secret eight cycle? i thought the whole point of these solutions was for games among friends.
aj19bcx The person hired could perhaps be bribed or blackmailed to tell information about who someones target or victim is.
I like Mat's solution. I found it beautiful too.
Same reflexion.
The solution of Matt was brilliant, I thought. He defined randomness and secrecy by going from naturals to complex (cutting the card to put an extra-dimension: adding i between 1 and -1).
The final solution was mostly the same, just more steps so not optimal in IT.
@singingbanana I've now added more to the description about the mathematics.
2:56 dat runnin tho
@amcnea D'oh! Very sorry! Now that you explain it, it makes perfect sense :)
@smilingxxpasta You should be able to. The annotation is there if you hover.
The "winner" was just Matt's solution with index cards instead of playing cards. The mix up was slightly different but was basically the same.
Wow.... you run pretty fast, sir! :)
I have a solution that I'm almost certain will work but scales up horribly. Let's say there's 4 players A,B,C,D. There are 24 possible 4 cycles/combos (I think );. One cycle would be B->D->A->C->B, So get 4 cards whose both sides are blank , on top of 1 card write 'B' and on it's bottom write B's target (from last sentence that would be 'D').Do the rest of the 3 cards to follow the listed cycle, the player's name on top of card , the target on bottom ,( if done right you end with writing C on top of last card , B on that card's bottom) . Keeping all targets facing down group the 4 cards with something generic like an elastic, clips, ect. It would probably be a good idea to have a blank card at bottom of pile to stop people seeing >later< the target at the pile's bottom. Now the fun(?) part , repeat all those last steps for EVERY ONE of the 23 other possible 4-cycles!!! You should then have 24 4-card piles. You should probably try to make each pile appear as similar to each other as possible especially by having the 24 pile tops have all the same name. Put all 24 piles in a bag and have someone pull a pile at random. Player whose name is on top of top card on pile grabs it without allowing anyone else to see that player's target (which is written on that card's bottom). The 3 other players do the same, grabbing card on pile's top when it has their name. Keep players from seeing the 23 leftover piles because players may then be able to make deductions about their opponent's roles.
I almost stopped the video to write that I liked Matt's solution best, although I wouldn't want to cut up a good set of cards. So I would make 8 pieces of paper with a player's name on each one on the top and the bottom. The winning idea was a lot like a combination of Matt's idea and mine.
@Gwynka Best offer I've had all week. However it is only Monday.
How could I possibly not watch this Video yet ??
@Begeru Did you try? There is.
Maths and top-notch comedy together. :)
One of the annoying things about this puzzle is the inheritance part where after you kill your target, you inherit his/her kill.
We used to do something a little different when playing pool with more than 2 players. It's simple and quick. Although with 15 balls, because it's uneven, it would help add to the confusion making it a much more enjoyable experience. Mind you, in our game, it was a hit list, with no identity for yourself.
Basically, this is how it works:
-you have 15 numbers (since there are 15 balls)
-you pop the written numbers into a jar
-each player pulls one out one at a time
-the objective was to sink all your targets
2 players = 7 targets each, 1 left in jar (unknown value)
3 players = 5 targets each
4 players = 3 targets each, 3 left in jar (unknown values)
5 players = 3 targets each
6 players = 2 targets each, 3 left in jar (unknown values)
7 players = 2 targets each, 1 left in jar (unknown value)
... [balls] divided by [players], [remainder] stays in jar.
when i was 14 i went on a robotics engineering course at imperial college london, and this guy was one of the proffessors on it.
@leungclj Underneath. As are most of the answers. But more practical, and scales up better.
@antichrist65535 We did watch it, it's nearly perfect (similar to GrandDizzy's) but we were able to predict who was killing who. I can see you've already seen that problem and fixed it.
Maybe we could improve a bit Grandizzy's idea?
Every player gets a unique random number.
Then, instead of writing every player's name twice in the cards, they receive a blank card. In this card, they write their numbers on the left side and their names on the back of the right side, putting it in an envelope afterwards.
The sorting proceeds like mentioned in the video; but everyone gets to see the numbers. Since every player knows only his/her number, the cycle remains secret.
4:20 good to see the Parker Brand going way back
Oh my word... I got picked as an OK example - I think I'm going to faint with excitement! The solution you guys picked as the best though is definitely the best - simple and elegant.
I used a similar solution to the winner to make a Secret Santa program that we have been using for many years, but I had no idea how it would work without a computer. That card thing is bloody brilliant :-)
ps, My computerised solution has become a lot more complicated over the years starting with the year my brother in law got my brother's name to give a gift to, and my sister got my brother in law's name... He was keen to discuss presents with her, but, somehow, she was less keen on discussing the present she was buying.
Hi Fellas, and ladies. There is a game a bit like this I played at my local gaming store. It is called The Resistance produced by Indie Boards and Cards. If you are interested it it is fun game for five to ten people. The first game we played I got to keep the game after getting paired with a strong partner and we rolled for it.
Just say that the blue deck is bigger than the red deck and so now you have a sequence from 1 to 104.
If the number of players is something random between 3 to 104 just take out all the cards representing numbers bigger than the number of players.
Now shuffle the cards and give one card to each person in a hidden way:
like putting the hand of both players under the table (or using an envelope).
Do you want to scale it up to bigger number of players?
Just use decks of cards with pantone colors.
@MrPointless I know. We all did.
Perfect timing on the sirens in the end! No wonder when you talk about 100 people going to be assassinated.
Isn't Matt's solution essentially the same as Dizzy's? (except that Dizzy's is more elegant AND you still wear your name as a badge ;) )
That solution is so simple that it almost hurts me to think about how much energy I wasted trying to come up with a solution that works.
As I wrote below my solution scales badly. For 5 players you need a bag with 120 5-card piles, ( I think !). There is an interesting feature to my solution though that may be harder to achieve with other solutions. That would be if for some reason you wanted to increase or decrease the chances of certain cycles appearing. You could say add copies of the piles/cycles you want to have an increased chance of appearing to the bag. To be more clear if you're playing with 4 players there should 24 different piles in your bag. Copy one of the piles and put that copy in the bag. Your chance of getting that particular cycle has now increased from 1/24 to 2/25.
Be sure to keep all of the left names (or right names) on top of each card pair.
That last one is so brilliantly simpel, even I can understand it instantly.
"THEY'VE COME TO GET ME!"
James, stop being so adorable THIS INSTANT!
Nice suit. Swell to see someone with a spiffy sense of style.
To add to Dizzy's plan, a supervisor who could be a player and couldn't see the targets would be able to watch to avoid peeking.
...how did he know I was in my underwear??
The last one is the easy solution but I like the card one better, because its more mysterious. You have to see the person from the front to know if he/she's your target or not :P It'd be cool if you have to hide it till you are far away from other people, it will give everyone a headstart :)
You can simplify this using a computer if you write a program for it.
A types their name in.
Computer knows not to give A the target A.
For argument sake computer gives A the target B.
B types their name in.
Computer knows not to give B the target B.
Computer also knows not to give B the target A.
Computer gives B target C.
And so on..
my friends and I padded weapon larp. this is going to be great to spice things up a little.
the example of the non secret 8 cycle is too damn funny
If we're worried about the game host cheating, then I think the envelope solution might be a little better than GrandDizzy's solution, since the person who shuffles and staples the cards can peek at all the pairings. With the envelopes if you seal them, then any tampering will become obvious.
There is a Problem with that winer solution (by Grand Dizzy): Lets assume the order of names is ABCDEFGH the other stack will be BCDEFGHA. The one who puts the names to Pairs in the end could remember the order of names. Lets say he picks the name from the 1st stack as public name and the other as "target". Since the 2 stacks have the same order only shifted by one, the 2nd public name will always be the target for the 1st person, the 3rd public name will be the target of the 2nd persond etc. It also works if you take the 2nd stack as public name.
I hope you understand what i mean
derZonk that's why they don't look at them until they've been stapled together and reshuffled. From start to finish the only time they get to see the names on the cards is before the first shuffle, and after the last. If the other players watch them to make sure they don't cheat and look at the order of names like you suggested. then nobody in the group will know the cycle.
I have a comment about the game's mechanics, and I haven't read all the comments, so I apologize if this has already been said. It seems to me that if I didn't know who was supposed to kill me, I could simply run away from everyone whom I knew was playing, except specifically the person I was supposed to kill. Or lock myself in a room until the smoke cleared, then emerge to kill my target and win the game. But anyway, the solution was brilliant and might perhaps have other applications.
My solution is to write a short program on a calculator (or you could probably find someone who knows how to write a smartphone app). After it sorts the people out by using a process similar to the card methods in the video, it displays one name, that person is handed the calculator and presses enter to see who their target is. They press enter again to clear the screen and display the name of the next person whose target is to be assigned. The calculator is handed around to each of the players, and if somebody tries to cheat by looking at someone else's target, then it will be easy to tell because then there will be at least one person who did not get the calculator passed to them. If somebody is caught cheating, then simply re-run the program and pass around the calculator again. No need to waste so much paper to redo the assignments like some of the other solutions have you doing.
Get a pizza cut into 8 slices. Put it on a lazy susan. Everyone sits around it and puts a slip of paper with their name on it under the slice in front of them. Spin the pizza as fast and as unaccountably as possible. Perhaps have 1/2 players blindfolded, the other 1/2 spin as much as they want, then the two groups switch. Then each player takes the slice of pizza before them along with the slip. Eat pizza and keep the slip.
Pizza won't scale to 100 but a big wheel with 100 sealed boxes is ok.
Yes, I could program this into a computer within a couple of hours, including a cheat-proof interface where everyone turns away from the screen for each player to receive their target in random order. Object stacks are counted using an INT value, so the upscale limit is 65536. In fact, that would make an awesome online game.
dodekeract
No, what I described was the computer serving as a completely impartial referee/game-master.
Basically it randomizes the targets and presents them in a way that each player only receives their target's name, with no other information leaked.
Very easy to program. In fact, the interface would be harder than the core rpogramming itself.
dodekeract
They didn't mention anything about a ninth entity. Their challenge was to have a system that did not involve a ninth HUMAN.
The cards are a ninth entity, just like the computer program I proposed. If they had forbidden any kind of ninth entity, then cards would also have been forbidden.
+dodekeract why should be the computer considered an entity while envelopes are not? It is just a tool, maybe more complicated than pen and paper, but still a tool.
+dodekeract I have my doubts about human brain being FLAWLESSLY simulated on supercomputers. There is a lot going on in human brain and there might be some quantum things going on, which current computers cannot simulate very well.
All that aside we were discussing program that would have nothing to do with how human brain works:)
He gets me so well...
Well, this "best" solution is good, but better would be if we connect card in each pair with 2-sides tape in top and bottom (name would have to be in the middle) and shuffle again, and then turn over, and everyone picks his/her name. Then all process can be done with all people and there's no situation to cheat. Next, all people can check who they have to kill separately (in different rooms or something). My solution was that we draw numbers in 8 cards, then everyone pick one number without showing them. Then, everyone have to write his/her name on the other side of card with number (or use new card) and put all in the pile (names up), shuffle to avoid memorizing, turn mumber up and put on a table. Then people enter room by one and turn up his number + 1 card. You can only cheat by looking at other cards, but we can make situation that everyone can see, that players pick one card, but not what is in this card. I'm watching this assassin problem at 2017, and I'm fascinated about this game, so I had to make my solution.
Excellent, smart solution, gratz!
Wait, the ultimate solution they accepted, what keeps a person from cheating and looking at what is written on each card while assembling them?
"Being Mathematicians... We have a lot of friends." OMG I died. XD
Matts solution and the winning solution seemed fairly similar, both involved identical data on a single card that was then split up.
:D I liked Matt's solution! The last solution basically tweaked that solution :) Very well thought out :)
Matt that is god damn brilliant.
I love these two
I'm fairly sure that the person who made the partners could figure out who will kill who in james's solution.
+Josh O'fortune - Plus it fails the cheating requirement. You can figure out everyone's target, in the same way you figure out your own target.
For example.
Alice was secret partner with Dave.
So you look up Dave, and then your target is the backside of one lower.
But while she has the deck, she can just as easily look
at Bob, turn his card around, see his partner and find his target.
You can't have a player "referee" looking through the deck, since they'd see who
you look at.
Also even without cheating you always know you're safe from your 'secret partner'.
Since your target is always 'one over' from you and your partner's card.
+Josh O'fortune And there is the issue with artificially limiting possible cycles (your first target is never your partner)
Sorry for answering one year late, but you are wrong. Your partner can be your target if your partner's card happens to be exactly one up in the pile:- Find your card.- Turn it over to reveal your partner- Find your partner's card- Go one down (so you end on your own card!)- Turn it over to reveal your target (but that is your partner)
Instead of names you could give colors: Every play receives a random number at the start. Then he draws his number from the pack and sees who you have to kill (target is written on the back)
To make make it possible to have any target, you need to have all possible 8 circles prepared on separate decks from which you choose one at the start of the game... Which of course requires you to make 8! pack of cards. But after you made them you have never to do it ever again! Unless you want to play as 9
Any solution where one person can steal another's target or identity seems prone to cheating if the players don't keep their card on them at all times, which is why it seems better to set up a secret pool, which cannot be seen in full without being ruled as dead, instead setting up a way of retrieving only sparse details from something, which seems to me to suggest a website or something would be best served for this purpose. And James' pairing strategy fails since a player can calculate who is going to be trying to kill them by working backwards. It's not a secret 8-pair.
The major problem that people encounter with this is that they intuitively think that people have to keep their original names through the whole process. In other words, "Alice" must remain "Alice" for the the entirety of the process.
Once you realize that you can actually rename people then the problem becomes trivial.
+WarpRulez - Who does the renaming? How will players know what they are renamed to? Will their target be renamed? Who pairs targets to their assassin? Do they know who's who? If not, how do they prevent smaller cycles? What prevents players from figuring out the system behind the renaming?
I'm sorry, trivial you said?
The winning solution is the same as Mat's. But instead of cards using paper with names. The winning solution is easier, you're using names, you dont have to look for the id card of the person and find your person.
Matt: "Anyone watching videos on youtube is uh... in their underwear."
Hey I'm wearing a shirt too!
Echos of Monty Python and Benny Hill all in one video. Best Video Ever!
i think this puzzle inspired a book called splash, it was the same concept, but instead of being killed, they used water guns
5:46. that seems very absurd, like you said it has to apply to when you have 100 people playing and still be practical. lets say you have 100 people playing, that means you need 100 cards. a height of a normal deck of playing cards is 8.89 cm * that by 100 equaling to 889 cm or 8.89 m. this is ridiculous.
A normal deck of playing cards does not consist of only 1 card, it consists of 52. Which means the heigh of the deck is more like 17 - 18cm, not 9 meters.
Edit: My brain stopped working for a bit, thinking yours did. I see what you mean now, and i also realised a stacked deck isnt 8cm high, im stupid. Sorry!
The best solution is the same as Matt's. He just didn't use playing cards to do it.
+Jukka-Pekka Tuominen incorrect, Matt's solution requires everyone in the game to wear their "card" as a badge because nobody's names are used. The winning solution is the best by far by all measures.
Mark Hunter Yes. But if you use cards with people's names on them rather than playing cards it's the same thing.
+Jukka-Pekka Tuominen Yes and no, you are right only if someone FOLDS the cards after cutting them very carefully in such a way that one half is visible publicly (always the same half). Otherwise you will see all the names of all the pairs as you are searching for yours. I would say the logistics of having to tape and cut and fold the cards is too finicky, it would be too easy to fumble something and reveal accidentally. The best solution is best because it's logistically easy and the entire process is also carried out publicly, especially the handing out of the names at the end so that the game master cannot cheat and look under cards before handing them out.
+Lorentz the annoying Llama It's not the same as one of the basic criteria was to not generate smaller cycles - drawing from a hat means that a can draw b, b draws c, c draws a forming a smaller circle. All players have to make up one big. Watch the original video again describing the problem!
Isn't Grand Dizzy's solution just a variation of Matt's? It just pairs up each person in a shuffled cycle with the person after them.
With, as he mentioned, the added bonus that you don't need to use identifying badges.
Brilliant! Love the problem, love the solutions.
amncea= "am-see-ya" with a slight n sound on the m, i can do it, just cant write it
So, the first half of "amnesty" and the last half of "panacea"
Maybe I'm not understanding the complexity. First, in your example, the second shuffle (once they are stapled) doesn't seem necessary. Next, Why not just number everyone 1-8 and then ask someone outside the game to randomly assign a number to each person (1-8)?
A tasty solution, but there is no guarantee that an 8 cycle will be generated from this method. You could even pick your own name if you end up with your original slice.
computer program created by third party host of the game. enter your name, program randomly selects the targets so you can check add a password for secret sake.
To take it a step further(and more assassin like), after entering your names into the computer you are emailed your target. No need for passwords and no one can cheat.
RMDan Yeah, try this one at a summer camp with 30 children without mobile phones ;-)
ElGrecoOB But it would work on a college campus with 100+ as a welcome week game. Different situations allow for different levels of complexity.
RMDan Right, and it's a great solution. But I believe one of their criteria were that there can only be the 8 people involved. If there was a 9th "admin" (even if it's a computer) it doesn't fit their conditions. Of course, the elimination of this 9th entity is what inspires the creativity, which is what they were going for. :)
+Bradley Wilson - No, you misunderstood. The criteria was that everyone has to be able to play. (i.e. No one is an "admin".) A computer program would just be an electronic version of the cards solution. Both "programs" do the same thing, only one manually and analogue, the other digitally.
PS. Just realized how perfect this would be as a welcome week game. If you email them the target, and only give them a name. Students are forced to go around and meet and introduce themselves to other new students in order to find their targets.
I didn't know that James was such a good runner