Nice article! I was confused by the part where you say, “A beats B most of the time, and B beats C most of the time, and yet C also beats A most of the time.” As A, B, and C are defined, that’s exactly backwards. Also, the order of presentation is different from the table, which shows A vs. B, A vs. C, and B vs. C.
I think it all would make sense if you change the definition to “a red die A with labels {3, 5, 7}, a blue die B with labels {2, 4, 9}, and a gold die C with labels {1, 6, 8}.”
As I have commented on wrt other posts, it’s very effective way to present mathematical concepts when the analysis is related to games. Thanks for this informative post!
Nice article! I was confused by the part where you say, “A beats B most of the time, and B beats C most of the time, and yet C also beats A most of the time.” As A, B, and C are defined, that’s exactly backwards. Also, the order of presentation is different from the table, which shows A vs. B, A vs. C, and B vs. C.
I think it all would make sense if you change the definition to “a red die A with labels {3, 5, 7}, a blue die B with labels {2, 4, 9}, and a gold die C with labels {1, 6, 8}.”
Good catch; thanks! I have fixed the “exactly backwards” error.
As I have commented on wrt other posts, it’s very effective way to present mathematical concepts when the analysis is related to games. Thanks for this informative post!
I think it might be a brand-new thing, but I wasn’t 100% sure, so I didn’t claim that in the article.