10:07: OK, thought they would have to eat the squid.
10:10: OK, I was right.
10:11: Chelsey wins!
10:16: Chelsey goes with Connor and Rashida gets Nelson! Who doesn't like the fish chum all that much. Chelsey-Connor (53.8%) is the obvious pick. Rashida-Nelson (11.4%) is a distant second, but it's better than other options they've had so far.
10:18: Damn, that is a LOT of hair.
10:27: Why are there no sheets on these beds??
Truth Booth
Chelsey and Connor are a perfect match! 2,613 combinations remain.
| Alec | Austin | Chuck | Connor | Devin | Hunter | Mike | Nelson | Tyler | Zak | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amanda | 7.1% | 15.6% | 12.4% | X | 15.0% | 8.7% | X | 13.1% | 12.9% | 15.2% |
| Britni | 3.5% | 9.2% | X | X | 10.3% | 54.2% | 8.6% | 6.1% | 8.2% | X |
| Chelsey | X | X | X | Match | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Cheyenne | 9.6% | 13.5% | 12.6% | X | 17.3% | 8.4% | 13.1% | X | 13.0% | 12.5% |
| Hannah | 10.3% | 13.8% | X | X | 11.6% | 9.3% | 13.1% | 13.7% | 14.8% | 13.5% |
| Kayla | 7.1% | 12.2% | 11.9% | X | 14.6% | 5.4% | 9.8% | 11.4% | 12.2% | 15.3% |
| Kiki | 12.6% | X | 29.5% | X | X | X | 20.1% | 18.4% | 19.5% | X |
| Melanie | 9.8% | 13.7% | 12.7% | X | X | 8.5% | 13.4% | 14.9% | 9.1% | 17.9% |
| Rashida | 9.5% | 13.3% | 11.5% | X | 18.9% | 5.6% | 11.9% | 12.8% | X | 16.5% |
| Stacey | 30.6% | 8.7% | 9.3% | X | 12.2% | X | 10.0% | 9.7% | 10.4% | 9.1% |
This confirms that one of Britni-Hunter, Kayla-Zak, and Stacey-Alec are a match.
10:35: Wow, Nelson went from chill to crazy in a matter of minutes. Chuck is hilarious.
10:37: They're having fun watching out the window.
10:42: I like the men and women coordinating their outfits. Great idea.
10:43: 5 weeks in the honeymoon suite can't be too bad.
10:44: Melanie with an early disruptive pick, taking the most likely couple off of the board.
10:51: Alec hasn't reciprocated Stacey's pick despite the fact that they're the second-most likely couple.
10:55: So no additional lights still means a blackout? Interesting angle. That means a blackout is far more likely than my earlier logic, which assumed a truth booth perfect match eliminated blackouts. (UPDATE: See the new logic.)
Matchup Ceremony
- Melanie - Hunter
- Britni - Mike
- Stacey - Alec (repeat from episodes 1 and 3)
- Kayla - Zak (repeat from episode 1)
- Rashida - Nelson
- Cheyenne - Devin
- Hannah - Austin
- Kiki - Chuck (repeat from episodes 3 and 4)
- Amanda - Tyler
| Alec | Austin | Chuck | Connor | Devin | Hunter | Mike | Nelson | Tyler | Zak | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amanda | 9.8% | 17.6% | 14.5% | X | 17.0% | 7.8% | X | 12.1% | 7.5% | 13.7% |
| Britni | 2.8% | 10.6% | X | X | 12.6% | 56.6% | X | 10.1% | 7.2% | X |
| Chelsey | X | X | X | Match | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Cheyenne | 8.3% | 13.1% | 15.9% | X | 13.3% | 9.0% | 13.7% | X | 11.7% | 14.9% |
| Hannah | 10.1% | 11.0% | X | X | 10.4% | 10.6% | 13.2% | 11.2% | 15.3% | 18.1% |
| Kayla | 7.2% | 11.5% | 14.5% | X | 15.0% | 6.4% | 11.2% | 9.8% | 12.7% | 11.6% |
| Kiki | 15.2% | X | 13.4% | X | X | X | 27.8% | 18.9% | 24.7% | X |
| Melanie | 7.9% | 14.3% | 16.7% | X | X | X | 13.9% | 18.7% | 11.2% | 17.1% |
| Rashida | 6.8% | 12.6% | 12.8% | X | 20.8% | 9.5% | 11.1% | 11.4% | X | 14.9% |
| Stacey | 31.8% | 9.3% | 12.0% | X | 10.9% | X | 9.0% | 7.7% | 9.7% | 9.7% |
(Programming note: No live blog next week, and the matchup post may be delayed.)
Appreciate the blog, it really is quite eye opening. I was wondering if you could shed some light on the first inference that Melanie and Hunter can not be a match. This must mean that in the 818 scenarios remaining, they are matched up in not a single one. I was wondering if it was possible to arrive at this conclusion base on logic (more like an lsat question) rather than having the ability to run every scenario on the computer. Your math/statistical abilities are far greater than mine. I wonder if those in the house might be able to arrive at this conclusion given their resources? Is there a piece of information to allow this inference to be made specifically, or is it a matter of running every scenario using the rules given by 5 episodes now, and not being able to create a scenario where this is true. Thanks again for your amazing work.
ReplyDeleteTypically, I come to most conclusions just by running every scenario, but in this case, the inference is actually pretty easy to follow.
DeleteMC1 + MC2 = two of Chelsey-Connor, Britni-Hunter, Kayla-Zak, and Stacey-Alec must be perfect matches
MC1 + MC2 + TB5 = one of Britni-Hunter, Kayla-Zak, and Stacey-Alec must be a perfect match
MC5 featured Kayla-Zak, Stacey-Alec, and Melanie-Hunter and had only two lights, one of which was Chelsey-Connor. If K-Z is a match, S-A and M-H can't be. If S-A is a match, K-Z and M-H can't be. And if B-H is a match, M-H can't be. We know that one of those three scenarios must be true based on MC1 + MC2 + TB5, so M-H is impossible.
Most of the inferred matches/nonmatches are not that simple.
And by this same inference we should be able to deduce that Britni and Mike cannot be a match either. And I see that is refected in your table. Thanks for clearing that up! It is very clever, keep up the amazing work.
DeleteI wish I would have figured that out for myself but I went on crazy tangents that lead me nowhere instead.
DeleteI wish I would have figured that out for myself but I went on crazy tangents that lead me nowhere instead.
DeleteAppreciate the blog, it really is quite eye opening. I was wondering if you could shed some light on the first inference that Melanie and Hunter can not be a match. This must mean that in the 818 scenarios remaining, they are matched up in not a single one. I was wondering if it was possible to arrive at this conclusion base on logic (more like an lsat question) rather than having the ability to run every scenario on the computer. Your math/statistical abilities are far greater than mine. I wonder if those in the house might be able to arrive at this conclusion given their resources? Is there a piece of information to allow this inference to be made specifically, or is it a matter of running every scenario using the rules given by 5 episodes now, and not being able to create a scenario where this is true. Thanks again for your amazing work.
ReplyDeleteI know that there were roughly 3,628,000 possible combinations to start and I know you eliminate options by running every scenario, but do you actually list out all 3 million plus scenarios? How do you do that?
ReplyDeleteYes - my computer program can look through and evaluate the entire list of combinations in seconds.
Deletewhat programming language do you use?
DeleteBeen following your blog since season 1. Love it!
ReplyDeleteLove your blog! It'd be useful if you can use a different shade for the inferred non-matches so its easier to follow your chart and remember how we got there :-) Just My Thought :-)
ReplyDeleteWith my math I have the results. I can't find anybody else that has them. I would post them but I don't want to ruin your blog or the show. Email me if you want to know. Kraka33@aol.com
ReplyDeleteI have no problem if you post them. We'll find out if it's true or not later.
DeleteThis is so interesting to me! Are you the one updating Wikipedia? I have my own chart I'm filling out trying to solve this before week 10. Wondering how Stacey and Alec are an unconfirmed match now, so hoping you have a reasoning behind that. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteThe only definitive lead we have is that ONE and ONLY ONE couple exists between:
DeleteStacey - Alec
Kayla - Zac
Britni - Hunter
We cannot be certain that it is Stacey - Alec at this time. The information used for this inference is Matchup Ceremony 1 & 2, and Truth Booth 5.
From Matchup Ceremony 1 and 2 one can deduce that the two lights must be from the following four couples:
Stacey - Alec
Kayla - Zac
Britni - Hunter
Chelsey - Connor
All other couples from Episode 1 repeated and were proven definitively not to be a match by Episode 2's blackout. Episode 5's Truth Booth has given us confirmation that Chelsey and Connor is one of the two. Leaving the three remaining couples as still possibilities. Again there has been no information to exclude any of the three from being definitively ruled out.
I am not updating Wikipedia.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere three matches I know for sure:
ReplyDeleteConnor&Chelsey
Hunter&Brinti
Kiki&Chuck
The reason how I come up with this is because:
Round 1:
Hunter&Brinti
Alec&Stacy
Zac&Kayla
Connor&Chelsey
Only 2 Light.So Only 2/4 Are A Match.(Round 2 is how I come up with these 4 couples)
Round 3:
Alec&Stacey
Connor&Chelsey
Hunter&Brinti
Pair up again and only got 3 lights making 2 out of 3 of these couple a match. Leaving 1 light to other couple that was pair together.
Round 5:
Alec&Stacey
Connor&Chelsey
Kiki and Chuck
Pair up again only got 2 lights this time. Connor&Chelsey are a match. So it's out of Alec&Stacey and Hunter&Britni. However since 1 light belong to another couple beside them the only couple that was sitting together was Mike&Kayla in round 3&4 however Chuck&Kiki was pair together in 3,4&5 so there a match. Since it wasn't 3 light that night Alec&Stacey are not a match leaving Hunter&Britni a match since they didn't sit together. So everybody that was sitting together in round 3,4&5 (beside Kiki&Chuck and Hunter&Britni & Connor&Chelsey) wasn't sitting next to their match.
You're missing that Round 3 indicated that either two of Alec-Stacey, Connor-Chelsey, Hunter-Britni + one other couple from Round 3 were a match OR that one of those three + Zak-Kayla + one other couple from Round 3.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhile your scenario may prove to be true when the show is finished, you cannot at this time be certain of it. It is impossible to know from Episode 3's three lights that one definitively belongs to Britni-Hunter. You cannot be certain of this because Kayla-Zac did not pair up in that episode. If it turns out the second light from Episode two does indeed belong to Kayla-Zac then the remaining two lights from Episode 3 (the third definitively to Chelsey-Connor) could belong to other couples matched in that ceremony. Who are still TBD. The probabilities favor your reasoning at this point, but mathematically you cannot be certain that the second light from episode 2 belongs to Britni-Hunter. "Pair up again and only got 3 lights making 2 out of 3 of these couples a match." Is an unproved statement, making any inference based on that unproven. This statement can be proven false if Kayla-Zac are indeed a perfect match. So it's really a speculation.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou might enjoy using http://areyouthe.xyz/ to run through different scenarios.
ReplyDeletewow, this site rules. nice work!
ReplyDelete