Author | Lu or
ID: Commercial Jianghu
Original publication and WeChat account: Cultural and Entertainment Observation
"Animal World" has won praises from many audiences for its careful logical reasoning. In fact, part of the logic is difficult to self-consistent. This film review attempts to analyze the loopholes.
The basic logic of Zheng Kaisi winning the first game is: many players will follow the principle of balanced playing of scissors, rock and cloth when playing cards, so as to ensure that the three suits of the remaining cards are balanced so as to bet (check) in the later stage. keep more options.
Based on this, Zheng Kaisi infers the cards currently held by the players from the remaining cards. For example, the remaining 3 cards are one rock-paper-scissors card, and the remaining 6 cards are two sets of rock-paper-scissors. By analogy, the remaining 9 cards are three sets.
After understanding this basic logic, let's see how the movie progresses.
Zheng Kaisi decided to find a suitable opponent to gamble. He first excluded those players whose remaining cards were not 3, 6, or 9 (because the cards of these people were unpredictable), and in order to keep the game more varied, Players 3 and 6 are excluded (the reasons will be explained later), and then focus on finding the remaining 9 cards - that is, those who hold three sets of rock-paper-scissors.
Xiaopang found the leather jacket with the remaining 9 cards. Zheng Kaisi played a bet and gave three scissors in turn. One stone and two pieces of cloth came out of the leather jacket. In the end, Zheng Kaisi lost one game and won two games. , earn a star.
In the movie, Zheng Kaisi explained why he won two games.
He judges that the leather jacket is a player who plays cards according to the above-mentioned "card balance logic", so the remaining 9 cards should be three sets of rock-paper-scissors, and the leather jacket that follows this logic will reversely infer Zheng Kaisi with inertial thinking. Follow this logic.
Therefore, in the first game, after the leather jacket beat Zheng Kaisi's scissors with rock, he thought that Zheng Kaisi should play rock and cloth in the remaining two games, so he chose to play cloth in the remaining two games, which could guarantee a draw and a win. The score is two wins and one draw. And this is also the reason why Zheng Kaisi is looking for players with 9 cards, because players with 3 or 6 cards can't or are difficult to play consecutively.
After analyzing the idea of the leather jacket, Zheng Kaisi used scissors in both hands (of course he only had scissors), and in the end Zheng Kaisi won the last two games, with a total score of two wins and one loss.
At first glance, this bridge section feels very smooth, logical and progressive, and when he finally wins, he will even praise Zheng Kaisi's meticulous analysis.
But if we take a closer look at the whole process, we will find the loopholes in it.
The reason why Zheng Kaisi chose the leather jacket as the gambling object is because the leather jacket is a person who plays cards according to "balanced logic", but the final result is that the leather jacket has "one stone and two cloths" - he The cards are not played according to the logic of equilibrium - that is to say, the fact of an imbalance is deduced according to the logic of equilibrium.
Do you have a vague feeling that something is wrong?
Yes, the Animal World movie presents a huge logical hole here. According to the above basic logic, the leather jacket at this time should not have "one rock and two pieces of cloth", but one each of "rock paper scissors" to ensure that the remaining 6 cards are two sets of rock scissors. Cloth (if the result is a win, a draw and a loss).
But it turned out that he did not follow the basic logic. After he played "one stone and two cloths", he not only lost two stars, but also broke the balance - the remaining 6 cards in his hand were three scissors, A cloth and two stones.
There is a deviation between the initial judgment and the final fact, so what is wrong?
The basic logic is wrong!
Suppose that in order to have more choices, players will keep the last 3 cards as one set of rock-paper-scissors, but will the players with the remaining 6 and 9 cards keep two or three sets of rock-paper-scissors? The answer is uncertain.
That is to say, the person who has 6 and 9 cards in hand is not necessarily two or three sets of rock-paper-scissors. After that, the remaining 6 cards are like that. He can completely use the game to adjust the cards in his hand again, playing three unbalanced cards and finally leaving a set of rock-paper-scissors.
Therefore, Zheng Kaisi's basic logic is wrong. But how can wrong logic win the game?
The answer that best fits the plot is that they are lucky - they happened to meet a fool with a very strange brain circuit, who originally followed the equilibrium theory, but changed his mind in practice.
But the most factual explanation is that the screenwriter helped them "open a cheat"-in order for the three Zheng Kaisi to win the game, the screenwriter did not hesitate to use the method of pushing back the results to lead the audience to believe in his cleverness. It looks more like the screenwriter and director guaranteed Zheng Kaisi to win the game, so a logical deduction process was carefully designed.
But why does a logic that is not self-consistent give people the illusion of "very smooth, no problem"?
In fact, this process is similar to a famous logical paradox in game theory - the "Tiger Paradox".
The king brought a young man to five doors and told him that there was a tiger in one of them. The young man had to open the doors in sequence, and he had no way of knowing which door the tiger was behind until he had not opened the door that opened the tiger.
According to the king's description, the young man began to calculate that if there were no tigers in the first four doors, the tiger must be in the fifth door, and the king said that he must not know which door it was behind, so the tiger must not be in the fifth door. In the door, and so on, the tiger is no longer in the fourth door, the third door...the first door, so the tiger does not exist. As a result, when the young man opened the second door, the tiger jumped out.
From the results, the young man's reasoning was wrong, but his reasoning process also seemed logical.
There are various explanations for this logical paradox. The easiest one to understand is that unless the first four doors are opened, it is impossible for the young man to be sure that the tiger is in the fifth door. If the first three doors are opened, the tiger may still be In the two doors 4 and 5, opening the first four doors is a premise, and this premise cannot be used as a conclusion.
This is similar to the inference process in "Animal World". Zheng Kaisi infers that many players will end up with cards with balanced suits, but this needs to be determined until the last three cards. In fact, in the process from 12 to 3 cards, Players can upset this balance at any time, which means that their win over the leather jacket is purely luck, not a proof of his cleverness.
As a movie with logical deduction as its selling point, such a logical loophole is really a failure, just like a famous Hunan restaurant has fried "small fried pork".
But on the whole, apart from this logical paradox and the superfluous "turning into a clown and calling me sick from time to time", this movie can be regarded as a masterpiece of domestic movies. Some of the details, such as quickly filling in the numbers The whistle of Du and Rose's life is a good foreshadowing.
As a genre film, "Animal World" is still worth watching. After all, daring to try is the beginning of a good thing.
View more about Animal World reviews
