Talk:Go First Dice

Two players
Conversation relocated from User talk:Rainwarrior:

Isn't the solution for two players even more trivial than this? If the first dice rolls a 0 they lose, if they roll a 3 they win; The second dice result is irrelevant. It may as well be a single coin flip - heads I win, tails you win. (Hohum @ ) 23:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe the goals of the problem are that each player should have their own die, otherwise it's not the go first dice problem anymore. For instance, the 3 player random order could be determined with only 1D6 looking up an order from a table, but that's not the problem we wanted to solve. Harshbarger included the 2 player case in their table, and to me it seemed symmetrical enough with the 3 and 4 cases to be worth explaining in the article. - Rainwarrior (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * As a second note, that's why Harshbarger's table lists 3 as the fewest total sides (1D2+1D1) rather than 2. Both players must have a die, even if it's 1-sided. - Rainwarrior (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The second dice serves no purpose, it's redundant; the person using it isn't taking part in anything meaningful. It seems like a terrible example. (Hohum @ ) 21:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

"Optimal"
The article uses the word "optimal" repeatedly, but the term is not defined, and it's not used in the reference. If it means "permutation-fair", it is redundant where it's used. I'm not sure what else it could mean. 144.82.114.249 (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I believe "optimal" would mean to have the lowest number of sides (and maybe lowest numbers on the sides, as a secondary criteria). We don't know if it can be done with fewer sides than the known solutions. - Rainwarrior (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Checking Harshbarger's article, there are 3 separate optimzation categories. I've now listed them in the article. -- Rainwarrior (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)