微軟中國公司招聘員工的經典考題

For convenience I'm calling the pirates #1,#2,..,#5 I am assuming an extra rule: If a pirate knows that #n+1's plan will give him the same number of coins as #n's plan, he will kill #n and take #n+1's plan. Then #1 should propose either of the following plans: #1 gets 97 coins, #3 get 1 coin and #4 gets 2 coins -or- #1 gets 97 coins, #3 gets 1 coin and #5 gets 2 coins

寶石題 係咪： 1要1顆 3-5各要33顆

#1 pirate takes 34. #2 and #3 take 33 each and #4 and #5 take 0.

n/t I would come up with answers similar to Robinson's. But I think this question is not well-defined. Say can the pirates make deals? And will they keep their promise? The outcome can be different. But the most misleading point is that those who can answer this question can make avg. 80K. Don't trust this kinda . Don't think you can get 80K if you know he answer. And yes, M$ interviews are very hard. But that's another story for another time.

可唔可以解解呀？ Robinson ： // Then #1 should propose either of the following plans: #1 gets 97 coins, #3 get 1 coin and #4 gets 2 coins -or- #1 gets 97 coins, #3 gets 1 coin and #5 gets 2 coins // ================ 好深呀 ~ ！ 十三點好驚 d 數架，唔係講笑架 ！ Robinson 呀，唔該你可唔可以用非常十三分簡單 ge 方法講俾我聽呀？春田花花幼兒園 nursery 班唔收我， TESTING 又唔理人地個心，重問我係唔係佢個 1A 班數學堂o既同學仔添呀！笑我呀 ~ ！ ================= 教下我好唔好 ah ？ 唔該哂你先，阿 Robinson ！

95, 0, 0, 3, 2 [A] Suppose only #4 & #5 remain there, #4 must give all the gems to #5. Otherwise #5 will Vote No and #4 have to die. So the outcome would be #5 get 100 and #4 get nothing (more probably they'll fight, or #4 kills #5 later while he's unaware, or split 50/50 if they're friends) [B] Suppose only #3, #4 and #5 remain there, #3 would propose "#3 gets 99 and #4 gets 1" At that time, #3 is confident that #4 would vote Yes since for #4, 1 gem is better than the 0 in [A]. In this case #3's proposal win since there are at least 2 votes for Yes out of 3 people. (more probably #4 & #5 will kill #3 together and then go to [A] since they are pirates , it's better to assume #3 is stronger than #4+#5) [C] Suppose #2#3#4#5 remain there, #2 would propose "#2 gets 97, #4 get 2 & #5 get 1" because #2 know that #4#5 are better off this way compared to [B]. In this case, #2's proposal wins because at least 3 out of 4 people vote Yes. [D] Suppose it's the beginning, #1 would take into consideration the above information and would propose "#1 get 95 gems, #4 get 3, #5 get 2" #1 knows #4#5 would support him since they are better off this way compared to [C]. #1's proposal wins as there are at least 3 votes Yes out of 5 people. #1 would probably get the 95 coins and then give some back to #2-4 immediately to avoid being killed or robbed later

年薪…… 前提或聯想： A.5人平分，每人有20顆 B.4人平分，每人有25顆 C.3人平分，每人有33顆，另餘一顆(即無法平分) D.聰明的1號海盜必不會想自己死 解答 [1].如2號死了，便會由3號分，則4或5有一人同意便可。 [2].若4號,或5號反對，則3號會死。之後便不能按照此法分配，而很可能會混亂，聰明的海盜們不會冒這個險。 [3].因[1]及[2]，當3號分配時，大家必定會同意。 [4]由於[3]，2號會分給3號較多的鑽石以收買他。即多於25顆。 [5]但2號仍須4號或5號其中一人同意，因此他又會分給4號或5號較多的鑽石。即多於25顆。 [6]由於2號已得3人的同意，因此他可從4號或5號中剝削，從而使自己成為分得最多鑽石。 [7]由於[4]､[5]､[6]，實質上只有三人去分，被剝削者可能只得一顆。 [8]因此4號，5號都不希望2號來分。 [9]1號捉住這心理，分給4號，5號略多的鑽石，他們便會同意。

等等 有點問題，容我稍後補充

修正完畢 A.5人平分，每人有20顆 B.4人平分，每人有25顆 C.3人平分，每人有33顆，另餘一顆(即無法平分) D.聰明的1號海盜必不會想自己死 [1].如2號死了，便會由3號分，則4或5有一人同意便可。 [2].若4號,或5號反對，則3號會死。之後便不能按照此法分配，而很可能會混亂，聰明的海盜們不會冒這個險。 [3].因[1]及[2]，當3號分配時，大家必定會同意。 [4]由於[3]，2號會分給其中兩人較多的寶石以收買他們，即多於25顆。換言之，剩下不足50顆給他給另一人分。 [5]由於[3]，4號和5號都不會想3號來分。 [6]由於2號可能會由3號､4號､5號中剝削，故3號，4號，5號都不希望2號來分。 [7]4號，5號是最被動的。他們必定知道自己可能會被剝削。 [8]1號捉住這心理，分給4號，5號略多的鑽石，他們便會同意。 [9]由於要使自己有最大利益，同時又要使4,5同意 則1號會有50顆，4號,5號各得25顆。 (不可能分給他們1或2顆，因為自己搶都搶得到) 2號，3號無權反對。哈哈！

嘩.好難咁喎 我又整個wild guess啦 要過半數既.... 咁啦,亞1可以話將100粒分3份,包括分比自己,比亞2同亞3,咁對亞2同3有so嘛,咁無左4同5(2個人)分得都多好多啦,仲有呀,亞1比人out走左亞2同3個勢都好危啦,esp亞2呀。只要1.2.3贊成,過半數,亞4同5反對都無用lu,如果唔係點都係亞4同5對分ka啦。

實際情況 只剩下兩人的話，4號即使全給5號，他還是可以「不同意」而把4號丟下海！(然後再拿走所有金幣) 所以剩下兩人時必會混亂。

隨機過程 //(more probably #4 & #5 will kill #3 together and then go to [A] since they are pirates , it's better to assume #3 is stronger than #4+#5) // 抽籤是隨機的，而且抽完又不會變得強壯些。

如果20mins之內估中有無prize? 第日年薪會唔會有8萬以上呢???? 幾時開估呀???

呢個係假設情況lor 如果大家(4同5)有同樣榷力既,唔平均分佢地是但一方都唔肯分,可唔可以唔假設佢地係會用武力解決呀,咁唔使估啦。況且而家人地氣question係問亞1會點做lor,跟本唔使唸亞2,3,3,4,5各自作主時可以點。唔好簡單複雜化啦,仲要計probability???

The answer If only #4 and #5 remain the share is 0 , 100 otherwise #5 will vote No and #4 will die and #5 will still knget 100. If #3, #4, #5 remain the share is 99 , 1 , 0. Since #4 knows if #3 die he must share 0, 100 to #5. So even if he gets 1 , he will be happy. If #2 #3 #4 #5 remain the share should be 97 ,0 2, 1. Since #4 and #5 will get more than above if the decision is made by #3 and therefore they will vote Yes. If 5 persons exist #1 should share 97, 0, 1 , 0, 2 since #3 and #5 will get more than the above if the decision is made by #2.Therefore #1 #3 #5 will vote yes.

雙兒，我係根題目指示ja //條件：每個海盜都是很聰明的人，都能很理智的判斷得失，從而做出選擇。 // 換左你係亞4，你仲會唔會跟規則o黎玩？亞5唔同意你會唔會跳海？ 鑽可誠可貴，生命價更高呀！ 我再再修正我答案： 如果係我就會咁分jei，但其實1號再攞多d都得，唔…… 我諗4號，5號各會得到接近10粒啦。否則，你分果一､兩粒俾佢地wor，佢搶都搶得到啦。 微軟唔會要d唔諗實際情況o既人掛^^"

Wild Guess 34, 0, 0, 33, 33

Why Mircrosoft has this question This question is not set for testing the logical thinking ability of the candidate. It is used to test whether the candidate has the concept of backward accounting.Backward Accounting is a very important phylosophy in the commercial world. A CEO of a listed company will work out the budget profits for the coming financial year, his subordinates (senior executves) will then have to work backward to come out with the budget sales and expenses figures for each division /department. Similarly, the department managers will work out the sales target for each salesman to achieve the budget. It is not unusual that some will have to make up fake transactions(like Enron, Worldcom) in order to achieve the budget profits ,if the profits is unrealistic. This is why this backward accounting phylosophy is so important and every executive (with salary over $80,000) must handle it well. Any candidate who wants an executive post must therefore be able to answer this question. The commercial world is obviously very different than the university world that most of you are enjoying. Once you join my path, you might have to put aside the logic concept that you apply in the perfect world.

George's answer is THE answer but he won't be paid.

推理題 我本來仲想問這是一條數理推理題還是常理推理題,現在不用了,多謝A qualified accountant的解釋 Bill Gates自己吾係CEO來的,是不是?

答案 超過半數的人同意時便可通過及唔使死： (假設每人既目的係分得最多石,同盡量另其他人死)得一半人同意都要死 如果得番4,5 咁,4 無論點分都要死 所以4 一定會支持3 所講既野 所以3 一定會話自己要晒100 粒 因為1 死左, 2 講咩都唔夠過半數支持 所以1 講咩2 都會支持 1比一粒4就夠三個人支持...... 因此1 可以得99 粒,2 得0粒可以保命, 4可以得1粒,3得0粒及5得0粒反對都無用。

路人乙 >>因為1 死左, 2 講咩都唔夠過半數支持 This is not true...if 2 proposed 98,0,1,1 he'll get 3 votes (1 from himself and 1 each from 4 and 5) because if 2 gets killed then for sure 3 will propose 100,0,0 which 4 must vote for because otherwise he's going to die. 十三點 My reasoning is similar to George's...except that I think that when 3,4 and 5 reamains the proposal would be 100,0,0 instead of 99,1,0 (reason given above). If you do the same kind of reasoning which George did you will find that both 97,0,1,2,0 and 97,0,1,0,2 will work. Of course if violence is allowed then the whole thing will become unpredictable.

分石 路人乙呀，你千祈千祈唔好開估住呀，我認真架！！ 我已經諗左個答案架 la 。但係我好唔掂呀！野又未做完，行李又未執，真真係手又忙，腳又亂咁話 ah ！ 我盡趕啦，你一定要等埋我個 simple mind 諗o既答案架，好唔好？ =================== 我既答案同 Benson 既一樣，不過就唔知諗既解釋同唔同。 =================== Benson 話 ： // #1 pirate takes 34. #2 and #3 take 33 each and #4 and #5 take 0. // ================== 路人乙，你要等我個喎，唔好唔記得 wo 。 如果唔係，十三點個聖誕就會唔係 100% 快樂 ga lah ！靠你架 lah ！

A qualified accountant A qualified accountant有標準答案......我晨早表態唔同意標準答案的。 我的答案並不"標準"無大意義。

哼！路人乙 人地都未講完，你就咁講，好傷呀！ 況且 A qualified accountant 只係講左後面個 d ，都冇講前面個「得」！

A qualified accountant都冇公開佢0既答案喎。 再者，我唔同意標準答案的。

分石 (II) 拿，就係咁o勒！ 唔理阿 (1) 講乜，(2) – (5) 都反對。所以呢，阿 (1) 就第一個遭殃o勒！ 唔理阿 (2) 講乜，(3) – (5) 都反對。所以呢，阿 (2) 又死埋 loh 播！ 唔理阿 (3) 講乜，(4) – (5) 都反對。所以呢，阿 (3) 都走唔 lut 啦！ 所以最著數就係 (4) 同 (5) 啦，當然！ 佢地可能為左獨吞 100粒石，就會你爭我奪。 但係咁，問題有可能係你死，但亦都有可能係我亡個播！ 所以呢，到頭來對佢地兩個自己最好o既方法，就係握手言和勒！ 即係話，每人有 50粒。 ================= 係咁架 la！一命二運三風水呀 mah，邊個叫你要抽到行先播！ 呢個故事教訓我地，o米以為行頭，就唔會敗家喎！ ============= 之不過咁，如果你係 (1) ， (2) 同 (3) ，你會唔會咁蠢 jeh？ 所以話呢，天機算盡太聰明，反而害左 (4) 、 (5) ！ 於是呢， 對 (1) 、 (2) 、 (3) 黎講，最好o既辦法就係夾埋，咁就會唔聲唔聲咁 out 左 (4) 同 (5) ，少左果兩個 頂心杉o勒！ =================== (1) 、 (2) 、 (3) 一定要合作o架！商場如戰場，一唔小心，就會俾對手食左架勒！ 嚮呢種情況，又做唔到獨食 (monopoly) 個條件。而且獨食又難肥 ， 因為佢好難做到絕對既 price discrimination ， o羅o西自己既最大著數！而且好似「微弱」咁，會招妒個播！會俾政府「差」架！ 而家(1) 、 (2) 、 (3) 就好似 oligopoly 咁勒，重可以玩下 cartel 添 woh 。 大家無言咁聯盟黎到限制競爭 ， 於是就可以增加利潤 ，重一早就趕走左 (4) 同 (5) 呢兩個競爭對手添！至於以後情會唔會變就以後先至算，最緊要掂而家個情況 ah mah ！ ============== 咁究竟應該點分 d 石好呢？ 我諗平分就最公平架勒，又可以費事佢地三個妒忌！ 重有一粒呢？點搞呀？ 最好梗係俾阿 (1) 啦！你諗下添 la ！ 於是個結果就係 (1) 有34 粒， (2) 得 33 粒，丙要 33 粒， (4) 同 (5) 就乜都冇！ 或者你又會問點解唔可以 (2) 、(3) 同 (4) 呢？咁樣 (2) 就有34 粒o剌！ 咁我又問番你勒，你話冇左 (1) 之後，阿 (5) 會唔會肯過阿 (2) 呢？為左自保，你係阿 (2) 既話，你會唔會 走條彎路o丫？ 唔係就係咁o羅！ ============ 其實如果要計數，求其請個 qualified accountant 就得啦！俾你請埋個精算師勒，乜數都幫你計掂o剌！駛乜要請個做 administration 既黎計數o者！ 但係如果請行政人才或者 CEO ，佢地個角色就係 LEADER 。咁一個機構o既 LEADER，又駛乜做會計、財務、精算既野o丫？ LEADER 既其中一個角色就係要帶領公司迎戰，嚮戰場上面要爭贏，但又唔係話要做 monopoly 先至得 。 點解？咁當然要睇下係做o羊生意啦！唔係樣樣都話要用 monopoly 方式架，要睇天時地利人和架！ =============== 死 la 死 la ， 大把野未做呀！唔得閒 ah ！ Faustus 呀，救我呀，快 d 執漏啦！靠你 lah ！ P.S. 你巢唔巢到我收埋送俾你個份聖誕禮物啊 ~ ！ 返黎送份新年禮物俾你。

Backward Reasoning I think that George’s answer is the “standard” answer. But I agree with S.C. that //this question is not well-defined. Say can the pirates make deals? And will they keep their promise? The outcome can be different.// Besides, the standard answer ignores the risk factor. We should remember that we are not only calculating their possible gains but also the risks of their loss (their most precious lives). So, it’s very unlikely that #1 would propose the plan given by the standard answer because the risk is too high. On the other hand, #5 would not accept the plan given by the standard answer because the possible gain (two diamonds) is just too low given his bargaining power. So, the answer given by 十三點 may be a better one. As A Qualified Accountant pointed out, this question is about backward reasoning, which, I think, is problematic. Consider the following example. Suppose a teacher tells the class that he will give them a surprise quiz in the following week. Now, the teacher cannot give the quiz on Friday because when it is Thursday, the whole class will know for sure that the quiz will be on Friday, so it won’t be a “surprise” anymore. But the teacher cannot give the quiz on Thursday because the quiz cannot be on Friday (for reason stated above) and when it is Wednesday, the whole class will know for sure that the quiz will be on Thursday, so it won’t be a “surprise” either. Similarly, the teacher cannot give the quiz on Wednesday, Tuesday, or Monday. The conclusion is that a teacher can never give a real “surprise” quiz. What is wrong about this (backward) reasoning? P.S. 十三點, thanks for your present in advance. Have a nice trip!

X'mas & New Year Faustus, 送俾你的聖誕禮物，其實我知道你已經收左架 la ！ 祝安好！ 十三點

Faustus I heard this story about 15 years ago. I still remember the test was finally on Wednesday and it was indeed a surprise. :) The problem is that we have to specify the time (and/or the subject). The surprise attack at pearl harbor was a surprise for the Americans right before the attack. (Well, there are reports that some American scouts found the planes and that was some conspiracy...) But it was no longer a surprise to the Americans after a couple of bombs had dropped. In your example, the test surely couldn't take place on Friday. Because the students would be sure on Thursday. But The students could only know that at the end of Thursday. If there was no test on Monday and tuesday, on Wednesday, they wouldn't know if the test would be on Thursday or Friday.

點解咁分呢？ Benson 呀 ，不如你又解釋下你個答案 jeh ，好唔好 ah ？

To: 十三點 Wait a minute, I thought the rules say //當超過半數的人同意時，按照他的提案進行分配，//, //超過半數// means MORE THAN half. When there are five people, three of them must agree. When there are four, still three of them must agree (half of four is two, more than two means at least three). Similarly, when there are three; two of them must agree. When there are two (half of two is one, more than one means two), both two must agree. This is what I thought which is quite different from George’s answer. Am I mistaken here? My rationale: Total# of pirates: More than half of total# 5, 3 4, 3 3, 2 2, 2 PIRATE #: 1 2 3 4 5 No. of diamonds: 34 33 33 0 0 PIRATE #: 2 3 4 5 No. of diamonds: 34 33 33 0 PIRATE #: 3 4 5 No. of diamonds: 50 50 0 PIRATE #: 4 5 No. of diamonds: 50 50 When there are two pirates left, there will be no alterative. Since both most agree on the assignment and both want maximum benefit, it must be 50 for #4 pirate and 50 for #5 pirate. When there are three pirates left, the assignment is 50 for #3 pirate, 50 for #4 pirate and 0 for #5 pirate. #5 pirate will definitely disagree. However, it doesn’t matter. Since both 3 and 4 will agree on the assignment in order to get maximum benefit. By thinking this way, we can figure out cases for four and five pirates. Again they are similar. For both cases, three pirates must agree on the assignment. That means we have to please all three of them and maximize their benefits. The optimal benefits for all three are 33 each, and the first one who makes the assignment gets one more, namely 34. The remaining pirate(s) will get zero and he(they) will disagree. Again, he(they) can be ignored since he is (they are) the minority. Therefore the result is: PIRATE #: 1 2 3 4 5 No. of diamonds: 34 33 33 0 0 The #1 pirate gets 34, #2 and #3 pirates get 33 each; while #4 and #5 pirates get 0. #4 pirate and #5 pirate will disagree. Their objection can be ignored since they are the minority. What about #2 and #3 pirates. Will they agree? For #3 pirate: I assume all pirates are equally rational, intelligent and selfish with no bargaining or making deals among themselves. Now #2 and #3 pirates both get 33, which is almost the best that they can get splitting the total amount three ways. There is no difference in benefit between #2 and #3 pirates. If either #2 or #3 pirate disagrees, #1 pirate will die and it will be #2 pirate’s turn to make the assignment. #3 pirate may get 33 but he may also get zero. PIRATE #: 2 3 4 5 No. of diamonds: 34 0 33 33 So #3 pirate has to bet between getting 33 or getting 0. I think he will pick the former. For #2 pirate: If he accepts the assignment made by #1 pirate, he gets 33. If he doesn’t, he will need to make his own assignment; and if his assignment is not agreed by more than half of the total # of pirates, he will die. So he is betting between getting 33 or dying. I think he will also pick the former. (Try to imagine if you were #2 pirate. “If I take it, I’ll get 33. If I don’t, I may get less or even die”. How would you choose?) Do you think I am right? Remember I assumed that they are all selfish. They rather get less than to risk their own lives. According to the above table, the best that a pirate can get is 50, the most likely one, or the safest one is 33 or 34 and the minimum is 0. The worst case scenario is death.

To Benson When there are 2 pirates left. #4 must propose #5 to have 100 diamonds to save his own life. Because: 1. when there are 2 left, #5 can single-handedly decide to pass #4's proposal or not. 2. If #5 reject #4's proposal, #4 will die and #5 will get 100 diamonds anyway. So he won't be happy with any less than 100. If #4 propose 50/50. #5 will threat him: "Hey #4, if you don't give me 100, I will reject and you will die."

to Benson 你諗既同我諗 geh 一模一樣。 而且佢地個提意見o既次序係依次序 (1) 、 (2) 、 (3) 、 (4) 、 (5) 咁樣，所以最大既利益者係 (1) 、 (2) 、 (3)。佢地一定會合作既！

to S. C. 單係 (4) 或者 (5) 都唔過半數 ga mah ！ 所以一係就你死或者我亡，爭餐死咁話o羅。不過邊個會死，又邊一個亡呢？抑或大家都仍然會跟遊戲規則呢？即係要過半數先至有得分，可以分呢？ 如果跟規則，咁最好方法就會係 50、 50 勒！ 唔跟既話，咁就 100 、 0 loh！

IQ Test Anyone who has interest in IQ test can go to the followlng web site: http://www.highiqsociety.org http://www.hkmensa.org If your IQ appears to be the top 2% of the population(score 148 or above),you can entry Mensa--an international organisation of top IQ .

correction If your IQ appears to be the top 5% of the population,you can enter High IQ Society. If your IQ appears to be the top 2% of the population(score 148 or above),you can enter Mensa--an international organisation for people of top IQ .

To: 十三點 Sorry I think we are wrong. I guess Robinson's answer is the right one. I made a mistake at the bottom and I got wrong deduction all the way up. Sorry. #1 2 3 4 5 97 0 1 2 0 or 97 0 1 0 2 # 2 3 4 5 98 0 1 1 #3 4 5 100 0 0 #4 5 0 100

Why, why, tell me why Benson ， 你唔好咁講啦，講到好似你誤左我咁。錯就齊齊錯o羅，我地都係咁諗加 mah ， 你唔好攬o西上身啦 ! 其實係我今朝諗起架，唔關你事架，不過我要走 la ，睇下今晚訓覺既時候系點諗先。

To: 十三點 Please read Faustus's, SC's and Robinson's posts. Theoretically robinson's answer is the right one. However, as pointed out by Faustus, it didn't take into account risk evaulation, bargaining, making deals, double-crossing (which are common for pirates) etc. Our intial approach was based on a PRACTICAL consideration. That's why we came up with 34,33,33,0,0. It makes more sense in practice. However, this is a hypothetical question, not a practical one. (In real life, when there are two pirates left; do you think #4 will really die without fighting and let #5 take all 100 diamonds)? So we shouldn't argue that way. We should simply follow the rules and make mechanical deductions just like what we do in math or logic. Therefore I still think Robinson is the winner. PS: have a nice trip and Merry X'mas to you.

Robinson好高呀 我林左好耐先至林到Robinson個答案 佢用左18分03秒搞掂， 仲要是包洗剪吹的 路人乙是否可以開估啦 我買Robinson 也想知道你不同意標準答案的原因 ＜普通話＞研究研究嗎！ 我估Robinson年薪應該冇8萬美金，現正打算轉工，首選是MICROSOFT^^"

i hv also discussed this question with my classmate and we conclude that the answer should be: 1 get 96 2 get 0 3 get 0 4 get 2 5 get 2 我們的推裡方式與Benson and Robinson 的大同小異。我們的process 如下: #1 2 3 4 5 96 0 0 2 2 #2 3 4 5 98 0 1 1 #3 4 5 100 0 0 #4 5 0 100 我們的answer 是assume 了他們會在不失去life 情況下冒最大的險. of course ,# 4 5 and # 3 4 5 still won't be change because 4為了保命,在這兩個case 裏都會投贊成票. but for # 2 3 4 5 ,如果2不給4 diamond,4可能會搏在 # 3 4 5 時,3會給4 diamond 而反對2,of course,actually everybody noes that in # 3 4 5,3 won't give 4 any diamond,but still for 4 it is no difference for 4 to agree or diagree 2,so ,to convince 4 must agree 2, 2 need to give 4 1 diamond. For 5, he noes that in # 3 4 5, he will be the "weakness", that means 5 can't affect the distribution of diamonds even he disagree with 3.So ,the same as 4, 5 will agree if 3 give any diamond to 5 . So ,to convince 5 will agree, 2 will give 5 one diamond. so ,we get the answer for # 2 3 4 5 with Benson or Robinson....but for # 1 2 3 4 5....

For # 1 2 3 4 5 5 noes actually in the whole process of distribution...he can't get more that 2 diamond as in # 3 4 5, 3 can do wht ever 3 like ,5 won't get any diamond in # 3 4 5.( # 4 5 actually is a case that will never happen.)In #2 3 4 5, 5 will get 1 diamond .If 1 only give 5 1 diamond, 5 may be disagree with 1 as he can c how 2 distribute the diamond .So if 1 give him two diamonds, 5 must agree with him as in any case , he won't get diamonds equal or more than two diamonds. For 4,it's the same as 5 because in # 2 3 4 5 ,4 will get maximum 1 diamond,so if 1 give 4 two diamonds,4 must agree with 1 and so ... the answers come out...

this solution must assume that they won't make any agreement, any dicussion b4. And also they need to be as clever as 1 ,if not, all the vote can be different from our answer.Also ,we need to assume that they won't have any "feeling" on others. That means, they all concern is only their life ,then the money. If not, the vote will also change as they wanna kill someone.

I think why our answer is different from Robinson's one is because we "think" that 4 and 5 in this "game" will be the weakness as the process of distribution must be stopped in #3 4 5. So 1 will give 4 and 5 diamond to convince they agree 1 but not giving diamond to 3.

致網頁編輯 本人在此網區一直以「無名」為名（例如在<<靠左走>>條中）。剛出現四次的無名君, 並非本人。 煩請安排, 萬謝！

sori..i've check my answer below..there are some "typing error" in the first mail i sent out, the forth paragraph ," For 5, he noes that...." ,in the third line . it should be "So,the same as 4,5 will agree if 2 give any diamond to 5"

Dear editor, As there is already a pll called 無名 ,could u pls just change my name to "無名人羣"???Thank you

手頭上的標準答案 標準答案 超過半數的人同意時便可通過及唔使死： (假設每人既目的係分得最多石,同盡量另其他人死)得一半人同意都要死 如果得番4,5 咁,4 無論點分都要死 所以4 一定會支持3 所講既野 所以3 一定會話自己要晒100 粒 因為1 死左, 2 講咩都唔夠過半數支持 所以1 講咩2 都會支持 1比一粒4就夠三個人支持...... 因此1 可以得99 粒,2 得0粒可以保命, 4可以得1粒,3得0粒及5得0粒反對都無用。 基礎係2一定"唔要"自己生命有危險；1 死左3一定會要2死，1、2死左3可以要哂100粒(因為4唔可以淨同5一齊所以迫住同意3)，所以4有1粒好過冇，5因為一定唔會死所以冇可能會同意任何動議(1、2、3死哂5有權要100粒) 我唔同意標準答案是因為2有可能搵條命來博；效果係： 標準答案-1有99，2、3有0，4有1，5有0...... 呢個時候2唔同意咁3、5都一定反對1，1死了2可以call自己要34，3有0，4、5各33，由於3一定會迫死2所以唔使理，4冇可能於2死後會有多過33粒(5唔能究用33粒博4唔要命放棄33粒石)，因此極有可能同意2。

I also think that...the standard answer is wrong...As we and many pll in this net analyse b4, there is a chance for 2 to stay alive in Case # 2 3 4 5, so 2 will disagree with 1 . Also 5 will disagree with 1 as he is sure to get one diamond in Case # 2 3 4 5. And so,this answer must be wrong.

To: 無名 You need maximum benefit for #1. #1 gains more in: #1 2 3 4 5 97 0 1 2 0 or 97 0 1 0 2 than #1 2 3 4 5 96 0 0 2 2

無名 既是無名 何苦爭名

大雄不辨雌雄？ 不是「爭名」的問題, 而是免得混淆網友視聽的問題。

本人雌雄同體, 心理有問題的, 呵呵唏呵呵................

誰是雌無名？ 誰是雄無名？

致網管 2002-12-21 00:04:14 的"嚼字"是冒名者, 請查核。以後此名若再出現, 與本人（一向以來名嚼字者）無關,謝謝。

未詳細睇各位貼文... 哈哈, 不如試想想如果是半數或以上的人同意也能通過時的答案丫? 想到的話, 再想想如果將三千億分給700萬人時, 要點做? 嘻嘻, 有答案的話, 你可以做財爺 :P

我的答案 同意十三點的一句說話：「單係 (4) 或者 (5) 都唔過半數 ga mah ！ 」 按照遊戲規則，若是剩下#4及#5的話，兩者都沒有機會死，因為“「提案者」有投票權的關係”，無論#5怎樣反對皆無效，皆不能超過半數，皆不能令#4死，所以，#5的期望是：若不是得0，則必不投反對票。 我的process與“無名人羣”在後段的分析有些分歧，但大抵上相若如下： #1 2 3 4 5 96 0 0 2 2 #2 3 4 5 98 0 0 2 #3 4 5 99 0 1 #4 5 100 0 未到最後一刻，#5都會認為自己“有機會”可得到2顆。

Surprise S.C. So how did you do in the surprise quiz? : ) To Dr. Lee’s students Don’t give your phone numbers to Dr. Lee; otherwise he may call you guys to have a surprise quiz on Sunday. : )

忽發奇想 基本上同意Robinson的答案，佩服！但又忽發奇想，不知這樣行得通否？ 第一個海盜提議由他得98顆寶石，另外一顆給第五名﹝或第四名？﹞海盜，其餘一顆由所有贊成這個方案的人抽籤獲得。

n/t Faustus: Well I flunk it, because here is another surprise: I didn't really care. :) BTW, Dr. Lee: of course the test could be on Friday, but it wouldn't be a surprise anymore on Thursday. Perhaps the real surprise was that there was no test at all, everybody would pass so everybody would have a merry Xmas! Yay!

>>再想想如果將三千億分給700萬人時, 要點做? This is not hard...All goes to me! SC: There's a very simple solution to your "surprise quiz" problem...just give the quiz to the students without telling them about it the previous week

...or any time before the quiz actually take place

康慈如果係1號的話！會提出我不要這100顆寶石了！留給你們４人去分吧！但我想成為這次的見政人！好嗎？ 其他海盜為了自己的利益，因此４人一定全體同意！之後其他海盜為了自己的利益，因此全都否決了別人的分配提案！因此其他之後3人的提案，都被否定了！第五人的提案因為沒有人同意或否定！因此沒有"超過"半數人同意！因為1號成了見政人。所以5號將被扔入大海喂鯊魚。最後成了只有一號沒有死！因此這100顆寶石成了1號！

Robinson兄, 你未免太貪吧? 如果要半數或以上香港人支持, 我的答案是至少要出350萬....

To：Robinson [[1]] //just give the quiz to the students without telling them about it the previous week// 這不符合論題的假設：// Suppose a teacher tells the class that…// ( Faustus ) [[2]] //or any time before the quiz actually take(s) place// 這等于李先生給出的條件句的後項（2002-12-20 15:20:00）, 但當缺少了前項的設定時, 學生可能（比如）因錯誤的想法而認定該次測驗必在下星期某天舉行, 因而在該天舉行就沒有任何 surprise 可言, 故不能如你所說：//any time…// [[3]] 最後, 若將上述條件句的前項補上, 那麼你的說法是成立的, 但這時你只不過重述了李先生的說法一次。

個問題係 既然每個海盜都是很聰明的人，都能很理智的判斷得失，點解會決定用呢個隨時一無所有嘅方法分石?

第二輪筆試 好似係聖誕節之前咁同阿 Benson 講過 : // 其實係我今朝諗起架，唔關你事架，不過我要走 la ，睇下今晚訓覺既時候系點諗先。// ================= 尋晚訓覺既時候先至記得起原來有 d 野唔記得左思考o下。 計我話，參加第一輪筆試既應徵者， 大致上可以分成兩堆。 第一堆果 d 就較為死咕咕，死牛一便頸，乜野都要計數，計呀計呀咁。代表人物就係 Robinson, George, S.C. 同阿 Faustus o羅！人地話乜佢地就信乜！ 阿 Benson 原本係好精靈 ge ，唔知點解愈大就愈容易受誘惑，十三點就係咁失去左 Benson 勒！真真係好可惜啊！ 另外果堆就頭腦靈活，打橫打掂都講得咁好，俾左好多唔同 ge 可能原因我地！睇得我地好開心，眼界大開！ 之不過咁，大公司請人，係要揾唔同既人黎做唔同既位。所以呢，十三點 ge 諗法就係，今次全部參加筆試 ge 網友，都可以入曬圍，繼續嚮第二輪比試裡面一較高下咁話！ =============== 路人乙呀，仲有冇「微弱」 d 題目呀？ 有就唔該貼上黎 jeh ！

愛情宗教 父子情宗教和愛情宗教在客觀的意義上有沒有大分別? 李天命老師-沒有你這明燈,我只有在黑暗繼續摸索ｏ多謝你!!!

Question for the second round You can expect the below question to be asked in the second round interview for those who suceeded in the first round. 1 + 1 = ? Again this will test whether one will qualify as a senior executive in the ever-growing multinational companies.

開始報名 la ！ Wa ~ Wa ~ Wa ~，十三點好開心快樂啊！ 1 + 1 = ? 咁深既？都話左人地唔多識計數架啦！有冇貼士呀？ Faustus，幫我 ah ！ 我地果筆數遲 d 至計，好唔好呀？

2 is the answer 1 + 1 = 2 想都不用想，2 是唯一的答案。 除非....... 除非在數字的後面加上一些單位(units)，情況便大為不同。 比如說：1 person + 1 person = 1 team

報平安o剌， Faustus！ // Faustus，幫我 ah ！ 我地果筆數遲 d 至計，好唔好呀？// Faustus 你去左邊呀？ 我似乎有可能差唔多就快爭 D D 想喊架 la ！ 冇左你我仲洗周圍 tun 既？ 咁我 d 牙齒印邊有人幫我擺平喎？ 仲有人肯咁底得諗幫我補錯補漏既 meh ？ 呢度除左你就冇人對我咁好，同我一齊無聊儍癡啦！連阿康慈都唔多啋我！ 算啦！算啦！最多你做左既壞事，欠我既個筆債就一筆勾消 lah ！ 人地真係想參加第二輪筆試加o麻！ 一係我諗幾個可能 ge 答案，你是但係咁 e 簡個o羅，好唔好呀？ 事實係你個福頭做左 d 手指拗出唔拗入 ge 事，不過我都冇話過唔理你！ 而家唔理人地果個係你 jah，好叻o羊 ~ ！

1+1 =2.

雪山､平安､有心 //算啦！算啦！最多你做左既壞事，欠我既個筆債就一筆勾消 lah ！// 不能反悔啊﹗ 剛從雪山回來﹐雪正在溶化﹐實在不宜滑雪。雖然風景不錯﹐但找不到那帶路的玉兔﹐也看不到仙女。 回正題﹕1 + 1 = 2 P.S. 各位數學家､物理學家﹐天機不能也不必再洩。山之高度能用儀器遙距測出﹐但雪山之美只能親自登山體會﹐祝各位有此機緣。

1+1=10

雪糕、快樂、無心 Faustus， 見番你我就放心 d 勒！ 而家我食緊雪山雪糕，vanilla 味。 好放心可以應考第二輪筆試。 話果筆數唔計其實係我既無心之失！ ================= 咁果 d 考官會問點解係 1 + 1 = 2 加 mah！咁點解o者？ 我個心目中有兩個答案，不過未諗掂簡邊個。 Benson 呀， Jacky 呀，你地又為左 d 乜野原因話個 答案係 2 呢？我心目中果兩個答案都冇 2 架！

1 + 1 = 10 原來數學狂不單只對數學有興趣，還是一名電腦迷哩，二進制恐怕袛有用在電腦上才有意義。

仙女的恩賜 To Faustus, >>找不到那帶路的玉兔﹐也看不到仙女。<< 不過,十三點卻與你重聚。現在她笑容滿面,還在享受你帶回來的雪山雪榚! >>雪山之美只能親自登山體會<< 絕對同意!當陽光照射著山峰,仙女悄悄地展露她的容顏,是登山者夢寐以求的一刻,是艱辛旅程最美好的回報。可惜,小弟當年與仙女緣慳一面。

1+1=0 in Z mod 2

李天命： // Cf： 1 = {α：Σx(xεα)&ΠyΠz[(yεα&zεα)→y=z]} 2 = {β：ΣxΣy[xεβ&yεβ&~(x=y)]&ΠuΠvΠw[(uεβ&vεβ&wεβ)→(u=vVu=wVv=w)]} m+n = {ξ：ΣγΣδ[γεm&δεn&γ∩δ=Ø&Πx[xεξ≡(xεγVxεδ)]]} // 十三點評：此之謂化簡為繁乎？ =============== 有 d 人係咁架！ 係o羅係o羅，就好似上面果段野咁o羅！驚死人地唔知佢「高」佢「深」咁！ 乜咁架乍？十三點既勢利眼一睇，就已經巢番曬果 26 個英文字母出黎 lah ~ ！ α β C δ Σ f ξ Π [ ] ε ( m n Ø ) δ γ & → u V w x y z ============= 所以話呢，做人就唔好自卑，o米以為人地寫 d 乜、講 d 乜 就好叻。 S. C. 話齋，佢識既雖然你未必識，但係你識既佢又係未必識個喎。 十三點對人 ge 要求一 d 都唔高。你讀萬卷書，人地行萬里路，書讀得多，做人處事又未必話一定好。有 d 野唔係奉旨架，不過有 d 奉旨既又唔聽話喎！人地讀書時讀書，遊戲時遊戲，Faustus 就讀書時發夢，考試時牙痛。 唔係o羊？唔係又點會寫得出 1 + 1 = 2 咁既野出黎呀？ 不過我冇阿 Faustus 錯呀！ 我今次既策略係要睇定形勢做人 ah ！

更正 不過我冇(話)阿 Faustus 錯呀！

十三點, 請勿自作多情呀 別人已聲明了「旨在嘗試單指弄鍵盤」,如此而已！

更正 「自作多」改為「表錯」。

表錯情 就冇， 不過阿李博士成日整蠱同欺負十三點就真、就有！ (一) 佢掌我個嘴！ (二) 東壁攪鬼既新年 666 事件，佢冇立刻澄清， 令到十三點好驚，然之後佢先至施施然咁出離話 — 唔關我事架！ (三) 明明人地講左好幾次話唔多識計數，佢竟然仲寫左咁多符號黎「教」我 1 + 1 = 2 (實情係唔係講緊或者証緊 1+1=2 我都唔知 ah ！我靠估架乍！)，咁算係點先？你話勒！

亞康慈呀~ eh~~ 都係唔問你啦! 問十三點好d。雖則你係深不可測, 但係睇你d野有時辛苦到標眼水呀! 亞十三點, 李博士畫0個幾條算式究竟講乜東東0架? 我淨係睇到好多符號串埋一齊, 好似串燒甘咋!

我地食左人地成間公司通常都唔o累骨o既, 敢你話算係1+1=幾呢, 請問下? 係甘先!

1 person + 1 person = 1 team 1 company + 1 company = 1 group

致網頁編輯 我係第一次到留言區,但msg係用descending order 排列,一次過看曬咁多頁好辛苦,可否供人選用arscending order 來看? thx

左撇子 看一看自己右面

左撇子 click上下移動的藍色箭咀

一看就知道是李天命話給十三點知！答案[心境平靜] 1 = {α：Σx(xεα)&ΠyΠz[(yεα&zεα)→y=z]} 2 = {β：ΣxΣy[xεβ&yεβ&~(x=y)]&ΠuΠvΠw[(uεβ&vεβ&wεβ)→(u=vVu=wVv=w)]} m+n = {ξ：ΣγΣδ[γεm&δεn&γ∩δ=Ø&Πx[xεξ≡(xεγVxεδ)]]} // 十三點評：此之謂化簡為繁乎？ =============== 有 d 人係咁架！ 係o羅係o羅，就好似上面果段野咁o羅！驚死人地唔知佢「高」佢「深」咁！ 乜咁架乍？十三點既勢利眼一睇，就已經巢番曬果 26 個英文字母出黎 lah ~ ！ α β C δ Σ f ξ Π [ ] ε ( m n Ø ) δ γ & → u V w x y z

o下 我仲以為教緊我計數乍！ 十三點又一次露左無知既兔腳o剌！想扮露馬腳都唔得！ 拿，我見到個 1 字，有個 2 字，又有 m + n (估係 1 + 1 卦)，所以以為阿李博士教我計數o丫o麻！ 阿旺旺呀，你接唔接受康慈既解釋呀？ 不如阿 Robinson 幫吓旺旺同埋我，解下畫，好唔好呀？ 冇乜野既，認同 S.C. 講既野，玩下o者！我都話左李博士整古我個o各！

亞十三點牙, 我信康慈架, 唔信佢點得呢? 你知我低低地架la, 睇個名就知, 唔止添woh, 仲係數理盲, 所以我信晒康慈架! ΠØnξ cΠ[ wα wØΠ: ping sheung ngan hon sai kan si ping sheung sum dui sai kan yan Πα wα ?

唔夠兩……？ 老師教小朋友加數。左手拿著一個蘋果，右手拿著另一個蘋果，問道：「我手上有幾多個蘋果？」小朋友想了想，回道：「唔夠兩個。」老師不明白，於是學著麥當當廣告中的美美女教師，側著頭問小朋友道：「點解呀？」「因為左手邊果個大Ｄ！」小朋友騎騎笑起來。 1+1>2or<2，行嗎？

真正答案 有個經理要請女秘書，為咗測驗佢地嘅性格，經理出咗一個好簡單嘅題目：1+1=? 喺分開面試嘅時候： 第一位非常快趣咁回答：2。 主任：呢個得唔得？ 經理：做事非常果斷，但係缺乏思考。 第二位佢諗咗一陣話：應該係 2 啩。 主任：咁呢個呢？ 經理：做嘢前會思考，但係有啲優柔掛斷。 第三位諗咗一陣，喺張紙上面寫咗個「王」字。 主任：哈哈！ 經理：好有創意，但係唔實際。 第四位好穩陣：計算出嚟係 2，IQ題答案係「王」字。 主任：犀利！ 經理：考慮周詳，不過模糊咗真正答案嘅焦點。 第五位了：計算出嚟係 2，IQ題答案係「王」字，但係真正嘅答案只有經理知道，經理希望係 2就係 2，希望係王就係王。 主任：仲唔係佢？ 經理：佢各方面都唔錯，但係分明喺度拍緊我馬屁。 完成咗 5 個面試之後，經理叫一干人等返去等消息。 主任：個個都唔得，不如我再登 ad 叫人嚟…… 經理：唔駛，就請第二個。 主任：點解？你又話佢性格優柔掛斷？ 經理：佢性格係點關我咩事……請佢係因為佢身材最好，條裙最短。

真正笑話 創意冇得頂,謝謝！

Transformations 週末再到雪山﹐跟TESTING 兄一樣﹐//與仙女緣慳一面。// TESTING 兄雖無仙女的恩賜﹐但收穫也不少吧﹖既有如玉的溫潤､葬花的迷離﹐亦能看到李博士論十三點﹐更何況vit 回來開檔﹐好詩可期。 P.S. 雖然十三點的十三點已被李博士論盡﹐但不用生氣。神秘的通常都高貴﹐但少一點神秘亦無損十三點的高貴﹐既然我們是twins﹐論盡了你即論盡了我—們的DNA結構﹐就讓我少一點神秘﹐你添一分高貴吧。

to : Faustus 早安！ 借廣東人君嚮《浪漫》留言串 2002-10-27 11:06:32 一文送俾你。 留言串而家既位置應該嚮頁二十一。 俾：我既 twin brother 阿 Faustus 預祝你農曆新年快樂！

葬花不是我 To Faustus： 承你用//葬花的迷離//來形容在下，這裡可能有點誤會。當日無端端唸起「葬華詞」來的是十三點，無端端因這首詞而記起在下的是TESTING，在下從來與葬花無涉。由於葬花之舉多為女性，在下身分尚屬雌雄未定，男女未分(雖然TESTING用「她」來指我)，一旦建立了這個葬花的image，以後就水洗不清，註定要做女人了。

唔知點解 貼多o左一次，浪費篇幅，不好意思。

不可說時不可說 又是一個美麗的錯誤! 葬花的女子惹人憐愛 葬花的男子世間罕有 無論女子或男子,均是人間至情

寶石問題 雖然遲了,但我想試試去解答.綜合了大家的意見,我認為答案是: 1:97 2:0 3:1 4:2 5:0 因為若1 死了,2可提議2:98 3:0 4:1 5:1.因為2死了3可獨得100粒.因此4和5必需同意2的建議.換句話說若1死了,3必得0粒及4,5各得1粒.因此只要給3一粒,4兩粒及5兩粒他們三個也會同意.而最慳的做法就是給3一粒及給4(或5)兩粒去令他們和議. 不知大家有何看法?

迷離､迷離 迷離﹐小弟無意亂辨雌雄﹐‘葬花的迷離’ 指的是‘因十三點葬花而引起的迷迷離離(的//美麗的錯誤//)’ 。引起誤會﹐實在抱歉﹐見諒。 同意TESTING, 葬花的, //無論女子或男子,均是人間至情// P.S. Thanks, 十三點, but you are not saying farewell to us, are you?

儂未葬花 已被人笑癡！ (@_____@) *********************** // 十三點, but you are not saying farewell to us, are you? // Faustus，我今日仲未諗呢個問題，唔係今日就未知住。 人生到處知何似 恰似飛鴻踏雪泥 泥上偶爾留指爪 鴻飛那復計東西 ********************** 爭 d 唔記得同你講 乜咁早晨呀！ 順便講埋午安 同 早抖！

AndyCool 咁樣會唔會仲「慳」？ 1:98 2:0 3:0 4:1 5:0 其餘一顆由贊成這個方案的人抽籤獲得。 如果#1死了，#3肯定只得0，贊成#1既話仲有機會抽到1粒，所以#3會同意這個建議。至於#4，#1一死，最多只能從#2處分到1粒，依家#1坐底俾佢1粒，好彩既話抽到就有2粒，#4冇理由反對。既然有#1、3、4贊成，呢個方案肯定通過，#2或者#5會點諗，橫掂反對都冇用，既唔能夠改變結果，反而喪失抽籤既機會，與其眼白白見人地分寶石，倒不如索性投贊成票，起碼可以有份博一博。 結果係：所有海盜都同意#1呢個提議‥‥‥ 咁既推論唔知得唔得？

TO:小孩 閣下的解答也很合理啊.真理果然越辯越明!

有d唔同 TESTING + Faustus： 男性同女性o既葬花有d唔同，女人葬花是至情，男人葬埋落花度，不但至情，而且至性。:):)

葬花的只有黛玉,世問亦只有一個黛玉 十三點,你幾時去揾東坡居士同法印和尚?可唔可以幫我請教佢地:如何見本性清淨?我要再去雪山揾仙女,可能返唔到嚟!

TESTING 不如你揾 Benson 啦！ 挽唔下手親自去揾蘇東坡或者佛印都係可以考慮既方法。

TESTING 冇寶玉就冇我!

2 Faustus，早晨！ 今日可能得閒少少，我約你一齊諗諗你提議俾我既答案。

下與不下 //泥上偶爾留指爪 鴻飛那復計東西// 放得下即得解脫 但放不下才是人生

Faustus // 放得下即得解脫 但放不下才是人生 // 將這兩句話放在新 thread 中討論，好唔好呀？ 如果你話好，咁就唔該你去開新 thread o剌！

沒有黛玉,那有寶玉 在世間尋尋覓覓跌跌碰碰,想不到在電子世界與妳重遇!黛玉,當年何解葬花?

2 (II) Faustus 你不嬲都聰明有智慧，係間中發下夢咁既 jeh！ 我唔係話你個 1 + 1 = 2 答案錯播， 不過你個答案咁樣寫就可能好 d 勒！ ************ 1 + 1 = 二 ************ 點解呀？ 拿，你非常快趣咁答 ： 二 做事非常果斷，有判斷力，唔係優柔掛斷。好！ 好有創意，又有實際。妙！ 好穩陣，考慮周詳，又冇模糊真正答案焦點。可靠！ 唔肯拍馬屁。有性格！ 問題就係： 好似吳蘭露話齋 // 佢性格係點關我咩事……請佢係因為佢身材最好，條裙最短。// 所以呢，如果你寫係 二 就最好勒！ 二字可長可短，能屈能伸，能上能下， 咁就最得人鍾意！ 呢呢呢，個二字如果上短就可以下長， 上長就下短， 上咁長，下咁長， 上咁短，下咁短， 唔長唔短， 時長時短， 果兩劃可近可遠，若即若離， 引死人！ 但係點先至最o岩、最好、最正確呢？ 咁就要靠 intuition 嫁 lah！ 做高級行政人員，唔係時時話要靠其他人、其他料 ge， intuition 都好重要，要抓緊時機，福至心靈先至得架！ 我講住咁多先，要休息一陣，同其他人無聊下先！ 你有乜諗法呀，Faustus？ ===================== 我個答案係乜？ 唔話你地知住！

寶玉 你蝦我!

不是冤家不聚頭 石頭不敢!

衰遺石 你淨係掛住同晴雯, 襲人佢地玩就唔開門比我, 仲話冇蝦我, 依家仲話我係冤家! 我又流淚啦!

枉入紅塵若許年 你唔了解我,我都係去補蒼天!

寶哥哥 喂, 哥仔, 你照番書做戲好喎, 係呢個時候你應該話你根本唔知我有黎搵過你, 係d妹仔冇開門比我呀嗎! 唔係我地好唔番個喎! 仲有, 都話明你無才 天, 你係大觀園行吓好啦!

my immortal beloved 你做咩唔搭我咀呀?

林妹子 晴雯出走,襲人出嫁,補天無力,大觀園己破,頑石出家忘世情!

唔熟書 我係比人趕走兼瓜左, 唔係出走!

石頭仔 八十回後ge劇情唔算數個喎, 你出咩家呀!

自蓄辛酸，誰憐夭折？ 太好啦!睛雯你仲係世上,太好啦!太好啦!太好啦!

! 唔比我係鬼!

有甚麼可怕? 當年你被逐的怨屈,就由我好好補償。林妹子,一定很開心!

雪芹先生 一切都是先生的傑作,十年的辛勞!

假寶玉 係會講d咁ge野足以證明你係假扮ge寶玉, 你又唔熟劇情又唔熟我脾性, 我同我個寶哥哥係絕配, 三不五時灑吓花 增進感情, 我係主子又點會同d妹仔爭風吃醋呢, 你個白痴!

黛玉妹子 你唔好嬲!一切都喺我唔啱,我向你陪個不是,妹妹你好心腸原諒我啦!更多年前嘅事,記憶同事實梗有d出入,但我對你始終如一,真心真意!

我死左啦, bye bye! 我死左啦, bye bye!

my answer My answer is First pirate 33 Second pirate 33 Third pirate 34 Reasons: The fist pirate only need to win the support of other two pirate. First, we consider the fourth and fifth pirate, they will mostly tend to reject the plans suggested by the first pirate, because they can get the most benefit if the first is die. So first pirate can't get any vote from fourth and fifth. The second pirate will tend to support the first pirate because if the first one is die, he also need to win two pirates to support him, and if the second pirate use the same plan suggested by the first pirate, he won't have extra benefit. Beside that he would have risk of his life if other reject his plan. SO, THE SECOND PIRATE MUST SUPPORT THE FIRST PIRATE' PLAN. If the third pirate rejct the plan of first pirate, and the second pirate use the same plan, he will get less one diamond, because the scecond pirate need to win the support of fouth pirate. SO THE THIRD PIRATE MUST SUPPORT FIRST PIRATE'S PLAN.

默然 黛玉,你死後往那裏去?石頭為你引路!

都唔知真定假ge寶哥哥 我死左後咪番我個寂寞林做世外仙株law!

難道,你忘了... 寶哥哥是姓"賈"的!無論前世今世來世都係石頭。

寶變為石? 有d傷感, 講真

咁簡單 1+1= 11

人世何短暫 . 承蒙君厚待. 來生若為人.定與君相逢 神英侍者 你為何沈默?

林妹妹,如果愛妳是錯,我不要對.

沈默 因為天地悠悠,命運不可改變。木石無緣,金玉錯配。 !

// 木石無緣,金玉錯配。// 對呀！ 一木和藥石無緣， kam 與如玉是錯配。

Explanations 十三點, your answer is very creative. I’m sure you will get the job. Just one suggestion: if the boss is a westerner, she may not be familiar with the Chinese numerals, so in that case, you may want to replace “二” with “II”. About the explanation of “1 + 1 = 2”, I don’t think that there is anything left to say. Once you have explained what those symbols and operators mean (which Dr. Lee did), then that 1 + 1 = 2 is pretty much “self-explanatory”. One may object that what Dr. Lee had done is just describing the same mathematical operation in another way, thus, not a genuine explanation. However, we should note that in many cases, particularly in science, different levels of explanation do count as explanations for each other. For example, one may ask why salt “disappears” in water. It’s because it dissolves in water. If we are asked to give further explanation, we may refer to the chemical structures of the salt and water molecules, their bondings, and the interactions among them. If asked further, we may go to the atomic or even subatomic level and describe the interactions of the basic forces. Would this chain end? Only if the “ultimate truth” is found (if there is one). But this process of questioning is very unlikely to end; it will continue for it is and will remain the motivation behind science and any other inquiries contributing to our understanding of the world. P.S. I don’t think that I will open another topic of discussion. Time is fleeting, leaving me behind.

時間 Faustus ：// Time is fleeting, leaving me behind. // 或者係「快活不知時日過」既另一版本！

聊 Faustus ： // 十三點, your answer is very creative. I’m sure you will get the job. // 多謝你， Faustus。 不過唔知 A Qualified Accountant 個答案係唔係同佢個名既職業有關。 1 + 1 = 2 呢個答案好好，因為 sense and response 同 intuition 有陣時嚮做決策果陣都好重要。 我個答案唔係 2，遲 d 先貼個答案上黎。 話時話，阿 A Qualified Accountant，究竟 e 個問題有冇「參考答案」既呢？ 有就遲 d 擺上黎睇睇喎。

冇左你，我唔掂！ Faustus ： // Just one suggestion: if the boss is a westerner, she may not be familiar with the Chinese numerals, so in that case, you may want to replace “二” with “II”. // Fautus，爭 d 唔記得唔該曬你又一次幫我補漏啊！

快活 快﹐因為浮生夢幻 活﹐因為感受真切 快活﹐所以歲月匆匆﹐不知時日過

箭與靶 Faustus ，你今日 short 左啊？ 做乜又亂講話： // 快﹐因為浮生夢幻 活﹐因為感受真切 快活﹐所以歲月匆匆﹐不知時日過 // 我又學下尤尤放飛箭先！ 仲唔快 d 諗下自己講野有冇矛盾！ 我嚮度等你呀！ 唔駛驚我架，你！ 我不嬲都好忍你既，你知架 la！

浮生 Haha, life is full of contradictions (or at least, contradicting feelings). So I’m not going to defend what I said about life or to rationalize those contradictions. What I did was just to observe and describe. 浮､生

逃避 Faustus！

The answer to 1+1 =? i) If you answer is 1+1=2, you are correct, but you won't get the job as a senior executive. You might get a job as an accountant. ii) if your answer is 3 or even 4, then you understand synergy for merger and acquisition which is the strategy for growth for most multi-national companies these days. iii) if your answer is 1+1 = what the CEO has in mind, then you are the kind of aggressive people who are willing to do everything to meet the growth target set by the CEO. These people are well sought after by companies like Enron and Worldcom which now run into bankcrupcy. If you get answer as ii or iii,and also the first question right, you possess the mentality and aptitude to be a senior executive. You are invited to participate in a simple language test tomorrow to ensure you possess the language ability to qualify for this job.( A senior execuitve has to write impressive business proposals and even annual report to shareholders, that's why he/she must be able to write the impossible) Enroll now!

快､活﹐快活 要活就不能逃避 但不逃避就會苦 逃與不逃﹐that is the question 逃與不逃之間 可以快活 注意是快活﹐不是快､活 //then you are the kind of aggressive people who are willing to do everything to meet the growth target set by the CEO. These people are well sought after by companies like Enron and Worldcom which now run into bankcrupcy.// That’s why I am not interested in applying for this kind of job. 十三點﹐are you interested?

十三點﹐are you interested? Wa ~ Wa ~ Wa ~ ，十三點好開心快樂呀！ 全中 ah！ ===================== Faustus : // 回正題 : 1+1=2 // ===================== 十三點評： 2003-01-08 // Benson 呀， Jacky 呀，你地又為左 d 乜野原因話個 答案係 2 呢？我心目中果兩個答案都冇 2 架！ // // 不過我冇(話)阿 Faustus 錯呀！ 我今次既策略係要睇定形勢做人 ah ！ // 2003-01-16 // 我唔係話你個 1 + 1 = 2 答案錯播， 不過你個答案咁樣寫就可能好 d 勒！ ************ 1 + 1 = 二 ************ // // 但係點先至最o岩、最好、最正確呢？ 咁就要靠 intuition 嫁 lah！ 做高級行政人員，唔係時時話要靠其他人、其他料 ge， intuition 都好重要，要抓緊時機，福至心靈先至得架！ // 2003-01-21 // 1 + 1 = 2 呢個答案好好，因為 sense and response 同 intuition 有陣時嚮做決策果陣都好重要。 // ================= Faustus 啊： 應徵唔代表應聘，拍拖唔代表結婚。 呢個世界，你簡人，人簡你， 唔見得某 d 行業、某 d 職位就要避！ 你估果 d 個名好似好清高既行業，做野既人就一定清高既 leh o羊？ 同流合污，抑或清俗分流， 就真真係要睇個人性格、價值觀。 和光同塵，和而不同，實則好大學問黎架！ 「性格有雙重，意志貫始終」 就係我既自描！ 你同我係 twins 黎家 mah， 咁都仲要問人 geh ？ 你自己諗諗o刺！ Haha，快活呀！ =============== 題外話： ****** Faustus，你又認為乜野職業先o岩你呢？ 其他網友又有冇諗過，你而家做緊個行，果個職位係唔係配合到你 ge 要求呢又？唔係既話你又點做 ah ？ =============== A qualified accountant 呀，我掂唔掂 ah ？ 個英文基準試幾時考呢？ A – z 果 72 個英文字母我識曬架， 點舞都得！

How can 13-Point be ever wrong? 13-Point (unfortunately, I haven't mastered the skill to type in Chinese yet) You are such a smart chemeleon who knows how to position in order to be always right. If only Enron and Worldcom had got you on board for advice, they would never had come into such a plight today. But like Faustus, you may have high virtue and choose to do something more meaningful to pursue in life. A qualified accountant is busy working out the CEO's preferred accounts for the year end before returning to Hong Kong for Chinese New Year. but hope to be able to spare some time later this afternoon to let you have the language test.

A qualified accountant 唔好趕呀！ 盤靚數需要好多時間架！ 我都要溫習下果 72 個英文字母至得家 mah！

你們中那些是主修哲學的?? plse leave some words here if u are studying philosophy or majoy in philosophy before.

睇下招聘咩職位 數學家 = 2 電腦工程師 = 10 資料統計員 = 1.999999999999 會計師 = Bill Gate 話幾多米幾多囉 :)