I meant to send this to Cypherpunks, but only sent it to David Honig. So, he's a slight head start on solving the puzzle.
Begin forwarded message: > From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu Jan 24, 2002 01:39:33 PM US/Pacific > To: David Honig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Thinking outside the box, deviously > > > On Thursday, January 24, 2002, at 11:12 AM, David Honig wrote: > >> At 10:37 AM 1/24/2002 +0000, Ken Brown wrote: >>> How unusual. All I am left with is the trite insight that in human >>> beings (and I suspect any species with a decent memory in which males >>> play, or can play, a significant part in rearing offspring) assessment >>> of reputation is, if not hard-wired, pretty much universal. And the >>> only >>> way it /can/ work is by assuming that he who can be trusted in small >>> things can be trusted in great. You tend to believe that someone who >>> lies and cheats about little things can't be trusted with big things. >>> So >>> the most successful liar is someone who remains scrupulously honest >>> until the moment comes for lying. (So maybe you should never marry >>> anyone you haven't often played cards with!) Not exactly >>> ground-breaking. >>> >>> Ken >> >> Over a decade ago I learned from published work >> that if a logical problem is posed as cheating (an underage >> person trying to buy ethanol IIRC) humans are >> much much better at solving the logical problem than if it is >> expressed otherwise. Some cog scis think this is evidence of >> hardwiring for social cheating perception. >> > > This is very interesting. > > Not having read the article, but speculating anyway on the general > point, it may be more than just "cheating." It may be the form of > thinking that encourages probing weaknesses, finding flaws and > loopholes (which is often what "cheating" is), and generally behaving > as a "tiger team" member looking to break in or demolish something. > > My most productive years of crypto thinking were from 1988 to 1992, > when I figured out a lot of the "undermining" things clued-in readers > know about. > > And my best work at Intel was when I was, without any false modesty, > Intel's top "smoke jumper," parachuting in to crisis situations and > bulling my way around looking for weaknesses and points of attack. I > solved a lot of problems by being very sneaky. Included at the end is > is a puzzle. > > Must be why some people here are so impressed by my charm. > > I think there's a connection to this kind of problem-solving and > cheating, and to "getting the juices flowing" and 'thinking outside the > box." Cheating is a kind of "devious" thinking, which is essentially > what thinking outside the box is. > > > Appendix: A math puzzle. Imagine a solid sphere. Maybe the sphere is > made of plutonium. A drill bit is lowered onto the sphere, going right > through the center, centered on the center (that is, the drilled-out > core is not off-center in any way. What is left is a sphere with a > cylindrical section (and the two end caps) removed. The height of the > remaining part of the sphere is 10 centimeters. What is its volume? > > > --Tim May > "The Constitution is a radical document...it is the job of the > government to rein in people's rights." --President William J. Clinton
