Comments on: The Theater of the Absurd: The War Log Edition — Part 2

By: Sambaran

Sambaran — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:07:08 +0000

If there are at least two people with blue eyes, everybody knows that there are blue eyed people without being explicitly told.
In that case all that is required from the vistor is a statement ‘let this be the day1 for reasoning to begin’. He need not tell that he sees blue-eyed people.
Let me know if you do not agree with my statement above.
It has been two years but I cannot get this puzzle out of my head.

By: raj

raj — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 07:32:10 +0000

Atanu, I found this post quite fascinating. You have taken pains to explain this lucidly. Thanks

By: TiredProf

TiredProf — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 19:10:50 +0000

I wouldn't harp so much on "common knowledge" between the American administration and the people. "The people" are busy preserving what jobs they can and getting their sorry asses out of a financial quicksand over 50 years in the making, which is now nosediving because of the diminishing returns of pumping hydrocarbon steroids into a catatonic patient. Common knowledge is useful only if you have the potency to act on it. What are we doing about Dick Raju, Madhu Koda, Lalit Modi, the other Dick Modi, crore-garlanded Mayawati, spectrum Raja, and all else about who common knowledge abounds?

By: Rohit

Rohit — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:37:39 +0000

1)I did solve the puzzle before posting . But found better link to explain the solution.I had come across similar puzzle few years back but it was not in the context of Common Knowledge so it was just fun back then and now it makes sense.
2)I understand the difference between the general knowledge and common knowledge but I am bit confused about the back and forth communication infinitely.
What I am wondering , once I know roses are red, you know roses are red (you also know I know here as I told you), I know you know.., you know I know you know… As far as knowing roses are red is concerned we both know now and we both know that other knows. Why does further iteration makes difference when number of parties involved == 2 (as in this example).
Is there any other practical example here to understand why these further iterations would be required ?

By: Loknath

Loknath — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 14:27:46 +0000

I meant none….

I think one”……….

By: Loknath

Loknath — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 14:27:02 +0000

I think one of the greatest leaders had minds of Lord to actually plot a deep, hidden, incomprehensible 50 year strategy in this war of terror thing. It was started by a cluless retard (I love this phrase Atanu) Bush and many corporations went on to mint hell lot of money and contributed major chunk to American treasury by way of taxes on corporatons, civilians and soldiers alike. Now if Obama were to declare tonight that he is pulling out all the troops from the hell hole of Afghan and Pak once and for all, the US economy will instantaneously swirrel down to conditions worse than the depression of early 30′s. The dead soldiers cost the Govt a lot less to the Govt..some gallantary awards, a memorial in his town and a pension fund for the survivors and that again is managed by the large insurance firms who recently went bankrupt. So now all the more reason to pump more soldiers and ammunition to the hell holes where practically there is nothing left to gain or loose except for a few lives who are not that significant for their respective Governments anyway. The US president is left with no alternative but to rant the stories of American Patriotism and the sacrifices made by his subjects. Such stories then inspire some more young minds to join US Army and Air Force and be posted in Pakistan.

By: raj

raj — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 22:02:29 +0000

The question is, why is US doing it, under both republicans and democrats? When Obama has to struggle for each dollar in spending against a lot of “new austerity” hawks, why would they blatantly look the other side when it comes to Pakistan? I wouldn’t agree that this is mere incompetence.