Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

River Crossing Problems: Algebraic Approach

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1802.09369 v1 pith:Y6HKDJWT submitted 2018-02-23 math.HO math.COmath.CT

classification math.HOmath.COmath.CT
keywords problemsapproachproblemcannibalsjealousmissionariesalgebraicarose
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

We consider two river crossing problems, about jealous husbands and about missionaries and cannibals. The missionaries and cannibals problem arose a thousand years after the jealous husbands problem, although its solution had actually appeared several hundred years before its formulation. We apply an algebraic approach to study these problems, using a symmetry group action on the state set of the jealous husband problem; then category theory is used to describe the relationship between the two problems. Some historical issues are also touched, related to the fact that the missionaries and cannibals problem arose precisely when the group approach began to be widely spread and popularized. This is the approach that naturally connects both problems.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Rethinking the Illusion of Thinking

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Reasoning models' Towers of Hanoi failures persist under stepwise prompting, while River Crossing failures mostly vanish when tests are restricted to solvable configurations.

  2. Comment on The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity

    cs.AI 2025-06 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper claims that the reported accuracy collapse of reasoning models on planning puzzles is mostly caused by output length limits and unsolvable benchmark instances, not by reasoning failure.

Pith tools