For ACPplayer and Cyrus
 

Granted, the question as posed is somewhat oversimplified, but it nonetheless illustrates an important point. And actually, the bare bones manner in which it is presented makes that point stand out all the more plainly.

Re: A terroristic problem
 

1 bomb ~= 5 lives

Shooting = 1 life

1/5 ~= 20%

Re: A terroristic problem
 

[ QUOTE ]
8 bombs in two weeks, 4 lethal and 4 not, 50 people killed. A guy you think has a bomb is headed for a crowded subway and won't stop for police. Assume your goal is to save the most lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bruce,

Are we to assume that a bomb will, on average, kill 50/8 people? Because that cannot be inferred from the statistics given.

I cannot tell wheather you were trying to post a math/logic puzzle or make the point that it is misguided to apply the simple, clean-cut methods of puzzle solving to real life problems.

gm

Re: A terroristic problem
 

That's the way I voted, as the problem was designed to produce that answer, but there is a problem with the poll. And that is the problem of treating social problems as math problems. This is what I believe AC Player was getting at. Taking a strictly mathematical approach leads to destroying the village in order to save it.

Re: Your question is flawed and biased
 

The poll is flawed because it presents your only option as shooting the guy in the head. If you have a gun, and have a shot at him, and you have the skill to shoot him in the head at will, you could (a) shoot him in the leg to keep him from making it to his target, and/or (b) shoot him in the arm/hand to keep him from detonating. Thus if there's any doubt, there's no reason to take the person's life.

Re: A terroristic problem
 

The general problem to using mathematics to solve societal problems usually comes down to the assumptions you use. The argument then becomes the assumptions to choose. That is really the advantage of formulating questions mathematically or rigorously (properly done it forces you to look at the assumptions). But once the assumptions are documented, we have to critically analyze not the solution to the problem posed (which to me is irrelevant) but the assumptions that were made in posing the problem.

Properly done this thread should be about the objectives of the police action in foiling suspected bomb wielding suspects, and in particular whether the minimize function on the lives lost is appropriate.

Re: Your question is flawed and biased
 

[ QUOTE ]
The poll is flawed because it presents your only option as shooting the guy in the head. If you have a gun, and have a shot at him, and you have the skill to shoot him in the head at will, you could (a) shoot him in the leg to keep him from making it to his target, and/or (b) shoot him in the arm/hand to keep him from detonating. Thus if there's any doubt, there's no reason to take the person's life.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you could possibly shoot out both arms before he detonates, this would be a reasnoble option. However, the almost certain chance that you don't succeed makes the option far too risky to even attempt.

Re: Your question is flawed and biased
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The poll is flawed because it presents your only option as shooting the guy in the head. If you have a gun, and have a shot at him, and you have the skill to shoot him in the head at will, you could (a) shoot him in the leg to keep him from making it to his target, and/or (b) shoot him in the arm/hand to keep him from detonating. Thus if there's any doubt, there's no reason to take the person's life.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you could possibly shoot out both arms before he detonates, this would be a reasnoble option. However, the almost certain chance that you don't succeed makes the option far too risky to even attempt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it depends on the circumstance I guess. Are we talking about a guy in a suspiciously heavy jacket about to enter a subway station? I thought so. So his hand isn't on the button and the risk of immediate detonation may be negligible.

Risk of Ruin
 

I hate to tell you this but your simplistic approach to the issue, as well as the original poster's grasp of it, indicate a profound misunderstaning of a key gamblinc concept, namely the Risk of Ruin.

If you cannot realize that once your are ruined (dead), you cannot come back and play another day (live again), then you have understood nothing about RoR.



Your life cannot be divided into percentages. Getting killed is irreversible. This cannot be "repeated a hundred times".

Re: Your question is flawed and biased
 

Do you guys not realize he RAN AWAY FROM THE POLICE in a subway station wearing heavy clothing in the summer.