The conditions for the input perspectives are vague, so wouldn’t it be better to argue that it is invalid as a problem?

>>3

>>41

If I had answered three times, I might have been able to say that too, but since I answered once, I can’t.

It’s all dependent on the information that is input! If we start saying that, then we can imagine people who are completely blind, or that a digital die will produce random numbers on any face, and it can expand infinitely, making it a meaningless premise.

>>1

If you tilt it in space, it won’t stop rotating forever, right?

I feel bad for Masami Kurumada, but when I think about what kind of person he is, I believe he doesn’t really understand it himself and is just repeating someone else’s reasoning.

The bizarre theory of Beat X was mostly like that.

>>26

At least read it properly…

Just looking at the dice is enough to swallow it.

Can you see a die from an angle where three sides are visible?

Isn’t setting it up so that it’s visible the same as putting it on display?

>>5

Even if you can’t see all three faces at first glance, it’s fine to shift your gaze in any direction and go with the first three faces you see.

>>6

Doesn’t it become subjective just by shifting it?

>>9

If the act of seeing is arbitrary, then the act of waving can also be arbitrary, so there is no need for consideration.

In the first place, the result can change depending on the perspective at the point of answering “once.”

I said I would let the dice decide, but I never mentioned it would be under the gravity of the Earth…

If this reasoning holds, then since it was shaken at the moment of creation, it would be considered correct at least once.

It’s the same as saying that the dice rolled by someone else don’t count for me, so it’s zero!

If there was a dice production base, the outcomes would be biased.

In the first place, this match is not a battle of wits; the one who can win with sophistry is the winner.

>>15

So, depending on the angle, there might be a possibility that three faces are not visible, so if I said 0 times was also a mistake, I could have won.

>>22

So, if the other party is convinced.

>>22

That answer would be incorrect as it is just one time.

Depending on the situation, if the sides cannot be seen, it will be acceptable to answer that it cannot be separated no matter how many times it is shaken.

>>24

Actually, since I was swinging in the dark, if you can accept “I can’t tell no matter how many times I do it” as an answer, then you can criticize the angle!

In a battle of fallacies, the one who comes up with a twisted argument that prevents the opponent from rebutting on the spot wins…

Taking the least common multiple of 6 and 8, which is 24, and dividing by 8 means at least 3 times.

But I still don’t understand the meaning.

>>17

Forget the reasoning about angles and just think simply about the numbers shown; it makes it easier to understand.

The total of the three rolls can be 16 different outcomes from 3 to 18.

If two of these options are assigned to one person, they can be chosen fairly.

(If it’s 3 or 4, then it’s Ms. A; if it’s 5 or 6, then it’s Ms. B… that kind of feel)

>>17

It’s fine to divide 24 by 8, but in that case, I think the dice would be rolled 4 times, which is 24/6.

Is it okay to do this three times?

It’s interesting how this showdown exchanges questions like those in the Nada High School entrance exam.

Since we are determining one of the six independent events selected from the entire set U.

I thought if I didn’t call, it wouldn’t be finalized with everyone gathered.

I still can’t accept this at all.

>>27

Once you’ve answered the question, you’re not just shaking; you’re establishing a means to confirm the situation as a value.

Do you number the normal answers from 1 to 6 for 8 people?

If you decide it by tossing a coin instead of using dice, there’s no need to roll the dice.

If we’re talking about using dice, you can say, “Assign the numbers 1 to 8 to the top faces of the dice. The assigned numbers will be determined by a coin toss.”

>>30

If we can break the premise of deciding with just one die…

Instead of going through the hassle of a coin toss, just bring out a random number generator, you convoluted person.

Hmm…?

>>32

You won’t understand anyway, right, Anonymous?

>>39

If you set a rule where you take an arbitrary viewpoint on the table and if it becomes a right angle, then you adopt the left side, it could be quite practical.

Considering the effort of reading it, it seems faster to shake it three times.

I think both Hokuto and Beat Max were planning to insist that if Poe answers once, the correct answer is 0, and if he answers 0 times, the correct answer is 1.

There is no correct answer.

>>38

I mean, looking at the subsequent questions from the Hokuto side, it seems they are completely intent on setting a trap.

>>59

The wyvern is just too useless.

>>61

Leon is so muscular that it’s awful he’s 2/3 useless.

Assign the eight corners of the trend to each person.

I thought the answer of distinguishing by identifying a corner from when it was first observed was the easiest to understand.

I understand that the one with three times can be done by dividing 216, which is 6 cubed, into 8 equal parts, but it feels strangely complicated and I’m not really sure about the least common multiple.

>>44

It’s easier to understand giving three answers when dividing into eight parts if it’s the cube of six.

Isn’t the least common multiple a calculation to find that multiplier?

It’s for children, so maybe they wanted to avoid bringing up that reasoning and omitted it.

If anything, it’s fine to just put this on top of the transparent case.

There is no specific position to place it at the beginning.

>>45

Shut up, nameless Ivan!

Max, you did wonderfully!

It’s a good problem in the sense of leading to a technique.

>>46

Since one time has eight corners, it’s easy to arrive at it…

Isn’t it that zero times doesn’t meet the minimum conditions for the act of “shaking,” so it’s no good? Shall we argue that, Lord Poe!?

How do you choose fairly with zero?

>>50

Look at the dice that are somewhere around there.

Saint Seiya is a math manga, huh?

>>54

Beat X! It’s Beat X!

With the same magazine as Guruman-kun!

>>56

It’s the same magazine as Eva, right!?

>>54

Astronomy requires advanced mathematics, you know.

If you look at it, I don’t think the numbers that come out are random, so it doesn’t seem fair.

>>60

Do you remember what angle the dice at home are at now?

>>60

When you throw, the way you throw can cause bias, so it’s not random and therefore not fair, right?

>>63

Since rolling a die won’t be fair no matter how many times you roll it, it’s 0 times!

You can fairly select from 8 people in one go! I thought, “I see,” when I heard that explanation.

I feel uneasy about the zero-count theory that comes after that, as it seems less rational.

What are you going to do if the dice is perfectly facing forward?

>>67

If we allow for the probability of a completely accurate front with no mathematical errors at all.

We must also consider the possibility that the rolled dice may come to a stop on the edge…

>>70

If you’re going to start talking about shaking in space, then take that into account too.

>>71

Then in the end, isn’t it just a wrong answer even once?

Isn’t it annoying when someone brings up doing things in space?

>>68

These guys can actually go into space, so it might be hard to deny that.

After this, the wyvern’s brain short-circuited and broke due to the further nonsense that followed.

Pope, furious and saying “I don’t care about any intellectual battles anymore!” resorts to the use of force.

>>69

Overall, the wyvern is correct…

If you present a question that can be answered seriously or with a silly riddle, I can definitely win this.

Well, it’s true that it would be troublesome if the mystery were solved.

The rule is that you can only solve this cube during the time I’m thinking, so I need Lord Poe to really struggle with it.

I couldn’t understand the area problem that was before this in my mind.

Very sad.

It makes sense to some extent, like convincing reasoning.