Comment author: pedanterrific 31 March 2012 05:37:28AM 2 points [-]

Not that strenuously:

"Correct, I think," said Professor McGonagall. "Although wizards are advised to avoid being seen by their past selves. If you're attending two classes at the same time and you need to cross paths with yourself, for example, the first version of you should step aside and close his eyes at a known time - you have a watch already, good - so that the future you can pass. It's all there in the pamphlet."

"Ahahahaa. And what happens when someone ignores that advice?"

Professor McGonagall pursed her lips. "I understand that it can be quite disconcerting."

Comment author: Eponymuse 31 March 2012 03:32:43PM 0 points [-]

You're right, I misremembered. Still, I think there is a lot to suggest that interacting directly with one's time-clones (as opposed to waiting with one's eyes closed while a clone drops off a message, for example), particularly in battle, is a bad idea. You would never observe a future-you doing something ineffective in combat---failing to dodge or block, or casting an ineffective spell, for example---since, after observing that mistake, you would be prepared for it in the future. So the only consistent possibilities involve losing or running away before you can go back in time, or winning right away.

But, since you know these are the only consistent possibilities, if you showed up to a battle intending to use a Time Turner and didn't see your time clones appear at the very beginning, you would deduce that you would not win, and therefore (if you could) you would run away. So, I expect that from Time's perspective, the most stable solution for people who intend to use Time Turners in battle is for them to not do battle at all.

Comment author: TobyBartels 31 March 2012 04:37:00AM 0 points [-]

Harry has been warned, strenuously, by Professor McGonnagal that he should not directly interact with himself

I forget if we're discussing MoR or canon, but either way I object. In canon, my objection is pedantic: it's Hermione who was warned, and she only later passed on that warning to Harry. In MoR, Harry has interacted with himself, a few times, and while they didn't all go well, there were no disasters.

Comment author: Eponymuse 31 March 2012 03:14:11PM 0 points [-]

He has never interacted directly with himself in a way that involves seeing a copy of himself, or coordinating actions in real-time, as would be the case in a battle. Harry has so far always heeded Professor McGonnagal's advice, and looked the other way when his time clones are around. Though, as pedanterrific points out, I have overstated the severity of McGonnagal's warning.

Comment author: [deleted] 29 March 2012 01:08:35PM 13 points [-]

Prophecy update!

Like most readers, I took Trelawney's magical clock for a listening device. What if it transmits instead of receives?

We've seen Dumbledore manipulating events into storylike patterns. He was the instigator of the three-way tie, and he precipitated Snape's fall and eventual redemption by the power of love.

In his Fortress of Regrets, Dumbledore gave the surface appearance of being terribly reluctant to allow his decisions to cause the deaths of others. But in the last chapter he was ready to let a small child be tortured to death - with much trembling reluctance, of course - in order to preserve his plans.

Could he have caused Trelawney to deliver the prophecy, triggering the other half of Snape's destiny, while feeding the Potters to Voldemort to create his orphan hero?

Dumbledore meant for Voldemort to have been killed by Lily's sacrifice. He believes it happened. Instead, Voldemort, taking the obvious trap (thanks Vladimir!) as a challenge to his wit (thanks Gwern!), pretended to lose (thanks buybuydandavis!), while fulfilling the letter of the prophecy in a manner maximally advantageous to himself.

He disarmed the trap by goading Lily into attacking him. He left a burnt husk of a body - not his, Avada Kedavra leaves no marks - and departed unharmed. Voldemort's not a ghost possessing Quirrell. He stole Quirrell's body the way he stole Harry's, although the defect in the copying process is different. He doesn't need Bellatrix's flesh to rise again. He rescued her, at least in part, while acting in the role of someone who'd been fooled by Dumbledore's ruse.

Events have followed the course of prophecy because someone created one as a deception and someone else played along as a counter-deception.

It looks viable to me. What do you think?

Comment author: Eponymuse 30 March 2012 09:03:02PM 1 point [-]

Seems unlikely that the original prophecy was caused by Dumbledore, at least by the method of the magical clock. As in canon, Trelawney seems to have made the prophecy during a job interview, presumably before she was regularly sleeping with the clock. I expect that if Dumbledore wanted her to make a false prophecy at a specific time, something like an Imperius folled by Obliviation would be more expedient. Furthermore, we have seen Trelawney spontaneously prophecy in the dining hall; this prophecy at least appeared unplanned by Dumbledore.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 29 March 2012 03:31:36AM 1 point [-]

Note that both graph isomorphism and integer factorization are problems that may well lie in P, so these aren't great examples. Traveling salesman is a bit better.

Comment author: Eponymuse 29 March 2012 01:34:45PM 0 points [-]

Sure, though my impression is that people don't think graph isomorphism actually is in P. And integer factorization turned out to be a problem for Harry. But you're right, we can actually just simulate a nondeterministic Turing machine this way: every time you have a choice for which state to visit next, just listen as future you tells you which ones not to visit.

Comment author: Logos01 29 March 2012 02:55:50AM *  0 points [-]

He got them from the breakfast table.

No. That's where Harry+1 got them. Harry did not.

I'm not quite sure how to parse this.

Six turnings of the Turner at T=0 results in the same 1-hour segment being looped into 6 times. This allows six iterations -- but those iterations do not recurse beyond the actual number of loops.

< is that you are gaining information as a result of some work, but that work is never performed.

That doesn't follow. How do you figure?

Comment author: Eponymuse 29 March 2012 03:06:05AM 1 point [-]

Sorry, I'm really not following your pie argument. Harry would learn about the pies in the near future; since it is his style, he would think about throwing them to frighten the bullies. So, his observation of Harry+1 throwing the pies is not necessary for him to think to throw pies anyway.

What do you mean by "they don't recurse"? Surely the fact that this procedure results in fast graph isomorphism testing shows that it is not a particularly "stable" solution? Or, do fast integer factorization by writing down the first digit for the least factor greater than 1, listen as future you says "no, no, maybe," and change it to whatever, and then figure out the second digit, and so forth. The scenario you've outlined results in nearly instant integer factorization (or password guessing, or whatever), so it is probably illegal.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 28 March 2012 02:10:53AM 5 points [-]

Poll to see whether the speculation made the chapter reading experience better or worse.

Comment author: Eponymuse 29 March 2012 02:33:57AM 3 points [-]

I hope you write the ending you want, rather than playing games to see which ending we will earn.

Comment author: Logos01 29 March 2012 01:33:13AM 0 points [-]

then it must be the case that you would have gained that same information even if you hadn't learned it at time S.

that doesn't follow. Where would Harry have gotten the pies if not from Harry+1?

In that case, he gained information that he would not have learned had he not told himself. Or, in your terminology, recursion was required in order to reach a stable state.

The recursion is non-iterative beyond the number of loops actually manifested, however. Each individual only adjusts the one previous, and only in immediately non-iterative manners. "Nope. Nope. Nope. Maybe. Nope. Nope. Maybe."

That lets you prune out failed items but doesn't recurse back to an instantaneous success.

Comment author: Eponymuse 29 March 2012 02:00:52AM *  0 points [-]

that doesn't follow. Where would Harry have gotten the pies if not from Harry+1?

He got them from the breakfast table. Where did he get the idea to get them? Well, he would have seen the pies later on anyway. Just like he would have learned about time turners later on in the day anyway, but a more stable scenario was obtained by learning about them earlier.

The recursion is non-iterative beyond the number of loops actually manifested, however.

I'm not quite sure how to parse this. If you would think about an idea at time T, but don't because future you tells you it won't work out, that means your whole thought process going forward has completely changed. But maybe the thing you start thinking about instead doesn't work out, so someone warns you about the idea at time T+epsilon. And so on. So if you are proposing that Time works by iterating through a number of scenarios until you get to something stable, the situation you've pointed to "requires recursion." (It's worth pointing out that Harry, when he gets his Time Turner, doesn't think this is a likely answer to how Time works.) But perhaps I am not understanding you correctly?

My main objection to the scenario you are proposing, though, is that you are gaining information as a result of some work, but that work is never performed. Try taking your scenario to its logical extreme. You sit in a room with one copy of future-you, and a large composite number N on a sheet of paper. On scrap work hidden from future-you, you write down an integer K. If you are not told that K does not divide N, you check. If it does, you keep track of the factor of N you have found. In any case, you then systematically select a new integer K' to check for divisibility. Once you have a complete factorization, you sit quietly, and at the end of the hour you go back in time. Then, you let past-you know the "keys" for all of the integers that weren't factors. Thus, you must have ended up only trying actual factors. So, you have a slightly more complicated version of Harry's factorization algorithm.

Edit to add: I guess this situation actually still is still an exponential time algorithm, since you still have to consider every possibly integer. But you could do, for example, graph isomorphism testing in polynomial time with a similar method: try constructing a map by first finding what vertex 1 should map to. Future you says "nope, nope, maybe," and on "maybe" you try to figure out where to put vertex 2, given that vertex 1 maps to whatever. If the graphs are not isomorphic, future you will say "no" to every choice for vertex 1, so you have your answer in polynomial time. Otherwise, you will construct the isomorphism in polynomial time.

Comment author: loserthree 28 March 2012 05:55:47PM *  9 points [-]

Edit: While some points may remain useful for the sake of reference, this theory is disproved in Chapter 82, and Aberforth's death no longer lacks narrative purpose.

Who killed Narcissa?

Suspects:

  • Dumbledore

  • Bones

  • Lucius

  • Voldemort

  • Someone else

HJPEV tells us that this doesn't fit the headmaster's style. His style is curiously consistent.

There is one offhand remark, vengeance, and a practical cold-heartedness favoring Bones. "Why not Bones?" is only a little better than no argument at all.

Lucius is presented as a devoted family man. It would be inconsistent characterization for him to do this. That works for real life, but HP&tMoR is fiction, which must make sense.

Voldemort has reason not to do this, as it made a fool out of one of his tools and weakened his side by making them less willing to strike indiscriminately.

I have a 'someone else' theory: Aberforth killed Narcissa. Aberforth is dead, and meaningfully so due to Conservation of Detail. We know little else about him from HP&tMoR. Only that he didn't testify against his brother in the death of his sister, and his brother got quite stern when he died. Basically, this theory allows me to put a piece in a puzzle because it fits, not because the image on the piece makes me think it goes with the pieces next to the hole. Also, I get to write the following paragraph.

In a world where innocents are dying, where evil is winning and good people live in fear for their loved ones, one man had the courage to do what must be done. Aberforth Dumbledore is Narcissa's Immolator.

Aberfoth kills his enemy's wife, informs his brother of what he's done, and then dies either at his own hand or, less style-consistently, his brother's. He knows that his brother will take this atrocity/sacrifice and make the best of it, and in so doing he saved countless 'light side' family members.

He did it all to make up for killing his sister and allowing his brother to kind of take the blame. Maybe.

Comment author: Eponymuse 29 March 2012 01:25:34AM *  9 points [-]

There is one offhand remark, vengeance, and a practical cold-heartedness favoring Bones. "Why not Bones?" is only a little better than no argument at all.

Also there is the fact (mentioned by someone else, sorry I forget who) that Narcissa's sister, Bellatrix, murdered Bones' brother. Edit: I am an idiot, you already mentioned this.

Bringing in Aberforth is a really interesting idea. Now that I think about it, even given the wizarding wars, it is remarkable that so many siblings have died or nearly died:

  • Albus/Aberforth

  • Bellatrix/Narcissa

  • Bones/her brother (who, exactly?)

  • Petunia/Lily

The last one is interesting with the role of survivor exchanged as well, since there is a hint that Petunia may have threatened suicide in order to convince Lily to brew the beauty potion.

Comment author: Lavode 28 March 2012 01:39:17PM *  2 points [-]

Re: the debt. I think Lucius may have been playing very high speed chess when he picked the amount. The point isnt to have Harry in debt to him, the point is to afford ex-deatheaters loyal to Lucius the oppertunity to trade in a blood debt to Harry for a monetary one to him. If this is so, the debts are likely to be paid off long before Harry can set any money making schemes in motion. - This would count as a downside to being in debt to Lucius - He cannot refuse cash in lieu as long as he is a debtor.

The ending note of that trial couldnt have been more precisely picked to convince people that he is a bodysnatch victim. Riddle me this? Gah. Incoming kidnapping and exorcism attempts. Not that Harry wouldnt benefit from a good exorsism.

Hermonie is going to read the note she gave him on dementors as soon as she is out of palfreys office, right? Seems nigh-inevitable. And I dont think she is nearly as commited to secrecy as Harry is, so word might well get out on how he pulled that stunt very shortly. On balance, this would tend to reduce the odds of him being murdered by a good citizen, so not all bad?

Comment author: Eponymuse 29 March 2012 01:19:08AM 8 points [-]

I think Lucius may have been playing very high speed chess when he picked the amount. The point isnt to have Harry in debt to him, the point is to afford ex-deatheaters loyal to Lucius the oppertunity to trade in a blood debt to Harry for a monetary one to him.

I don't think so. It's clear from his reaction that he did not want Harry to accept the trade:

It was clear that Lucius Malfoy had not been expecting that reply.

And later:

"I withdraw my offer!" shouted the Lord of Malfoy. "I will not accept the debt to House Potter in payment, not even for a hundred thousand Galleons! The girl's blood debt to House Malfoy stands!"

Indeed, it is a taboo tradeoff from Lucius perspective. He has traded justice for his son for money and the resolution of a political (though not moral) debt to Harry. He picked the amount because he thought there was no possibility that Harry would accept such a large amount.

Comment author: kilobug 28 March 2012 09:09:41PM *  1 point [-]

I'm wondering why Lucius tried to get out of the deal.

If Harry is Voldemort in hiding, he should guess that Harrymort needs Hermione for something (a dark ritual perhaps ?) and shouldn't get out of the deal.

If Harry isn't Voldemort in hiding, then Lucius would get two benefits in one : a payment of the blood debt he has towards House Potter (which could cost him a lot in the game of politics), and a debt from the Boy-Who-Lived, which could grant him a lot in the same game. And lots of money in addition, which is always a good thing to have.

I know that Draco is "his only weakness", but Draco didn't suffer any permanent harm. So he shouldn't be so upset to give up such a political advantage just to send Hermione to Azkaban, which doesn't bring him much. I don't get how a cunning Slytherin like him can discard such an advantage for pure vengeance over an "attempt" which didn't do any real harm.

Edit : I forgot to add : also, trying to get back on his offer on mere technicality in front of the whole Wizengamot damages the honour of House Malfoy, that's an additional cost to his attempt.

Comment author: Eponymuse 29 March 2012 01:13:57AM 10 points [-]

I don't get how a cunning Slytherin like him can discard such an advantage for pure vengeance over an "attempt" which didn't do any real harm.

On the contrary:

And Draco was getting angry again. "Dumbledore killed Mother, it's not enough to just say it's sad! I don't understand what you think you have to do, but the Malfoys have to take revenge!" Not avenging the deaths of family went beyond weakness, beyond dishonor, you might as well not exist.

Lucius never meant for Harry to accept the monetary bargain. This is clear from his reaction. He wanted his revenge, and Harry was interfering.

View more: Prev | Next