yy2bggggs wrote:Gelsamel wrote:I phrased it wrong, it's the possibility that the Guru was referring to them. If the guru was referring to them then they know they have blue eyes, otherwise they possibly have anything.
I'll buy that--and I can see where my confusion was as well, since I try to use "at least one person has blue eyes" as a reduced piece of information, which is distinct, but I think these two are equivalent with respect to the puzzle.
Edit: Still, I'm having problems seeing this as a simpler way of explaining it, maybe just cause I don't see the explanation from this angle. Could you post a sample?
A - "The Guru could be referring to me. If I was the only blue eyed person all I would see was brown eyed people, therefore the guru HAD to be referring to me, and my eyes are blue. If there is only 1 blue eyed person and it wasn't me then that person would leave on the first night because he realised he had to be the one the guru was referring too. If there are 2 blue eyed people then he won't leave because he isn't totally sure the guru is referring to him. If he isn't totally sure that the guru is referring to him then he must be seeing another blue eyed person since all I see is a blue eyed and the rest are brown and a green the only possible other person he could be seeing who is blue has to be me." etc.
However he has to know that the blue eyed people he is seeing know that they could possibly be the one, otherwise they won't go through the same logical progression 'A' above and they WON'T be 'testing' if it's them or not by observing how other blues act which would skew the results.
If the guru made 2 separate announcements to half the group each and both groups know about both announcements then counting works, however if the guru misses one person then tells that person in secret then the counting won't start because they're not sure if that last person knows and the link is broken.
I'm not real good at explaining this stuff but that's the way my mind goes through it.