Talk:Truel

message: An editor removed the example of a theoretical truel, claiming that it is "blatant OR".  My feeling is that this is not OR, as any undergraduate probability student can verify this example.  It is not "research": it is merely a not completely trivial (but not difficult) computation.  In mathematics articles there are numerous such examples of the results of computations.  In terms of verifiability, anyone with a modicum of probability knowledge can verify this, without any other references, so I don't think any citations are needed for this.  I'd be happy to hear what other think.  I'd also be happy to typset the calculations, and perhaps put them on a separate "proof" page.  If people really feel it's OR, I'll find a published example to copy. Doctormatt 22:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Doing any derivation on a Wikipedia page without providing a source or a published example of that precise formula is original research. You cannot assume that everyone has "a modicum of probability knowledge" and because of the requirements in WP:OR, you cannot simply create that material yourself. If you do find a published copy, do not recreate the formula with a reference on the end of it, but instead quote only the conclucions of that finding and cite that.  Cumulus Clouds 01:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Example: OR?

message: In a book by Martin Gardner, there is a solved problem about a truel. I suspect this is the "original" truel problem, others being variations of this one. From memory: Cowboy Smith is a 100% sure shot, Brown 80% and Jones 50%. They shoot sequentially, the order set by a lottery from the start. They have infinitely many bullets, they can deliberately miss, and they keep on shooting till only one is alive. Last man standing wins the girl they are fighting about. As long as S and B are both alive, they will shoot at each others only, and J should deliberately miss - because if he shoots one of them, it will be the other one's turn, and he will die at the next shot with 80% or 100% certainty. If he waits till S or B has finished off the other one, it will be his turn next, and J has a 50% chance of winning at the next shot. Completing the probability tree (including a geometric series),
:P(S wins) = 27/90 (approx. 30 %)
:P(B wins) = 16/90 (approx. 18 %)
:P(S wins) = 47/90 (approx. 52 %)
This contradicts the statement presently in the article that it is the best strategy to shoot at the best shooter - not so for Jones!--Noe (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gardner's truel 

message: I propose merging Three way duel (puzzle) into this article (Truel), as they seem to deal with essentially the same topic. I chose to propose a merge into this article because this article seems to have a longer history and more activity. However, one could make an argument for a merge in the other direction.--GregRM (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - I see no reason not to do so.--Noe (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: You can't be serious about that math equation. I know that Wikipedia is full (F-U-L-L) of useful information, but sometimes, one could live without such nonsense. An explanation of the topic, which, depending on the cultural position and popularity of the topic itself, etc., etc., etc., can vary in depth; the history of the topic; and other information about it should be all that is needed. Obviously, most people don't want a math equation about a word that is similar to the word "duel".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaabii123 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What edit are you proposing?  Thanks.  SPECIFICO talk  19:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The game theory is referenced. The lede needs expanding. Widefox; talk 19:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uhhh...