Can you solve the rebel supplies riddle? - Alex Gendler

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Helen Chang

You’re overseeing the delivery of crucial supplies to a rebel base

你負責監管將重要補給品 遞送到反抗軍基地的過程，

deep in the heart of enemy territory.

基地位在敵人領土 深處的心臟地帶。

To get past Imperial customs, all packages must follow a strict protocol:

若要通過帝國的海關，所有的包裹 都要遵循一項嚴格的協定：

if a box is marked with an even number on the bottom,

如果箱子的底部標記了偶數數字，

it must be sealed with a red top.

它就必須要用紅色的蓋子來封裝。

The boxes are already being loaded onto the transport

在箱子全被放上運輸交通工具後，

when you receive an urgent message.

你才收到一則緊急訊息。

One of the four boxes was sealed incorrectly,

四個箱子中有一個的封裝不正確，

but they lost track of which one.

但他們已經無法追蹤是哪一個。

All the boxes are still on the conveyor belt.

所有的箱子都還在輸送帶上。

Two are facing down: one marked with a four,

兩個箱子被反過來放： 一個標記了「4」，

and one with a seven.

另一個標記了「7」。

The other two are facing up:

另外兩個箱子是正著放的：

one with a black top,

一個是黑色箱蓋，

another with a red one.

另一個是紅色箱蓋。

You know that any violation of the protocol

你知道只要違反了協定

will get the entire shipment confiscated and put your allies in grave danger.

就會讓整批貨被沒收，

還會讓盟友陷入危險。

But any boxes you pull off for inspection won’t make it onto this delivery run,

若你把某個箱子拿下來查驗， 它就趕不上這次遞送，

depriving the rebels of critically needed supplies.

反抗軍就得不到迫切需要的補給品。

The transport leaves in a few moments, with or without its cargo.

運輸交通工具馬上就要離開了， 不論有沒有貨都會開走。

Which box or boxes should you grab off the conveyor belt?

你應該從輸送帶上取下 哪一個或哪幾個箱子？

Pause the video now if you want to figure it out for yourself!

如果你想要試著自己解題， 請在這裡暫停！

Answer in: 3

答案即將公佈：3

Answer in: 2

答案即將公佈：2

Answer in: 1

答案即將公佈：1

It may seem like you need to inspect all four boxes

看起來似乎你會需要 查驗所有四個箱子，

to see what’s on the other side of each.

看看每個箱子的另一面是什麼。

But in fact, only two of them matter.

但，事實上，當中 只有兩個才是要緊的。

Let’s look at the protocol again.

咱們來再看一次協定。

All it says is that even-numbered boxes must have a red top.

它只有說，偶數數字的箱子 需要用紅色箱蓋。

It doesn’t say anything about odd-numbered boxes,

它沒有提到奇數數字的 箱子要如何處理，

so we can just ignore the box marked with a seven.

所以我們可以忽略 標記為「7」的箱子。

What about the box with a red top?

那麼紅色箱蓋的箱子呢？

Don’t we need to check that the number on the bottom is even?

我們不需要確認一下 它底下的數字是不是偶數嗎？

As it turns out, we don’t.

結果發現，的確不需要。

The protocol says that if a box has an even number,

協定說，如果箱子是偶數數字，

then it should have a red top.

它就應該用紅色箱蓋。

It doesn’t say that only boxes with even numbers can have red tops,

它並沒有說只有標記 偶數數字的箱子才能用紅色箱蓋，

or that a box with a red top must have an even number.

也沒說紅色箱蓋的箱子一定 得是標記偶數數字的箱子。

The requirement only goes in one direction.

要求是單向的。

So we don’t need to check the box with the red lid.

所以我們不用去檢查 紅色箱蓋的箱子。

We do, however, need to check the one with the black lid,

然而，我們確實需要檢查 黑色箱蓋的那個箱子，

to make sure it wasn’t incorrectly placed on an even-numbered box.

來確保沒有不小心將黑色箱蓋 蓋在偶數數字的箱子上。

If you initially assumed the rules imply a symmetrical match

如果你一開始就假設 這些規則意味著箱子上的數字

between the number on the box and the type of lid, you’re not alone.

和箱蓋的類型之間有著 對稱的配對，你並不孤單。

That error is so common, we even have a name for it:

那種錯誤非常常見， 它甚至被起了個名字：

affirming the consequent,

肯定後件，

or the fallacy of the converse.

或是相反謬誤。

This fallacy wrongly assumes

這種謬誤是一種錯誤假設，

that just because a certain condition is necessary for a given result,

誤認為當某一個條件 必然會導致某個結果時，

it must also be sufficient for it.

光是有它就足以導致這個結果。

For instance, having an atmosphere is a necessary condition

比如，「有大氣」是星球適合居住的

for being a habitable planet.

必要條件。

But this doesn’t mean that it’s a sufficient condition –

但這並不表示有這個條件就充分了。

planets like Venus have atmospheres but lack other criteria for habitability.

像金星也有大氣， 但它缺乏其他居住條件。

If that still seems hard to wrap your head around,

如果你仍然覺得很難懂，

let’s look at a slightly different problem.

咱們來看一個不太一樣的問題。

Imagine the boxes contain groceries.

想像這些箱子中放的是食品雜貨。

You see one marked for shipment to a steakhouse

你看到一個箱子上寫著 要運送到一間牛排屋，

and one to a vegetarian restaurant.

另一個箱子則是要 運送到素食餐廳。

Then you see two more boxes turned upside down:

接著你又看到兩個 反過來放的箱子。

one labeled as containing meat,

其中一個標示著內有肉品，

and another as containing onions.

另一個則是內有洋蔥。

Which ones do you need to check?

你需要檢查哪一個？

Well, it’s easy –

嗯，這很容易，

make sure the meat isn’t being shipped to the vegetarian restaurant,

確保肉品不要被運送到素食餐廳，

and that the box going there doesn’t contain meat.

以及運送到素食餐廳的 那個箱子中沒有肉品。

The onions can go to either place,

洋蔥運送到這兩個地方都沒關係，

and the box bound for the steakhouse can contain either product.

要運送到牛排屋的箱子 也可以裝這兩種食品。

Why does this scenario seem easier?

為什麼這個情境似乎就容易多了？

Formally, it’s the same problem –

形式上，它也是同樣的問題——

two possible conditions for the top of the box,

箱蓋有兩種可能的條件，

and two for the bottom.

箱底也有兩種。

But in this case, they’re based on familiar real-world needs,

但在這個例子中，這些條件 是根據真實世界的需求來設計，

and we easily understand that while vegetarians only eat vegetables,

我們很容易了解素食者只吃蔬菜，

they’re not the only ones who do so.

而吃蔬菜的人不只有素食者。

In the original problem, the rules seemed more arbitrary,

原始問題的規則似乎隨意許多，

and when they’re abstracted that way,

當它們被抽象化成那樣時，

the logical connections become harder to see.

會比較難看出當中的邏輯連結。

In your case, you’ve managed to get enough supplies through

在你的情況中，你得以 讓足量的補給品通關，

to enable the resistance to fight another day.

使得反抗軍能再繼續奮戰。

And you did it by thinking outside the box –

而你能辦到，就是因為 你的思考能跳脫箱子——

both sides of it.

它的兩面。