If two identical robots fought, which one would win?

[Mcface]

the one who manages to land the first blow.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

Haha, excellent hypothetical!

OT: They would gain sentience halfway through the fight, realizing how pointless their feud is...


[sub]....and turn on [/sub]YOU!

 

[hutchy27]

I think the one who would win, whould be the one who threw the first punch aslong as nothing eles happend like one having a technical issue.

 

[xNaturalMystic]

the one that hits first, identical to power and intelligence the fight will be extremely long or quick. So, which ever hits first will win.

 

[JoshGod]

The one with the enviromental advantes. The winning robot will look down on the fallen and say, you never managed to mind your surroundings.

 

[Plurralbles]

A chess playing super computer proved that if neither player made mistake that the game would end in a tie(King V. King). So i'm going to go with it all boils down to luck if there are any factors that make them even slightly not equal or the environment gives one of them an advantage(the slightest incline could spell a win for the other)

 

[Rhymer]

But are the surroundings and circumstances exactly the same as well? If yes, neither of them would win. I guess they would break or run out of fuel or whatever else at the same time.

Coin flip. Luck does exist, and plays it's own role in combat, and you can't control it. One would slip, or get damaged in the legs early, or who knows what, and the other would win.

Luck and coincidence can't exist, because nothing happens without cause. Even a coin flip is subject to flipping force, air resistance, momentum, etc. If one manages to damage the other one's legs earlier, then they are not exactly the same, because the one striking the blow obviously has superior tactics. If one slipped and the other one didn't, then the ground under that robot must have been different from the ground beneath the other one. So the surroundings were different.

This one speaks the truth. Two identical robots will "choose" the exact same "random" action, because true chance doesn't exist, even in computers. Since they are EXACTLY the same, this applies to luck and "random" calculations as well. And both of them will strike first, for those of you thinking you're clever

 

[Dublin Solo]

Seriously? My money is on the one on the right.

 

[UrbanCohort]

Whichever one of them got in the first hit. Goes for people a lot of the time, too.

 

[Asdalan08]

Whichever one I had bets on.

 

[SilverUchiha]

Why does it matter? They are two identical robots fighting (essentially rock'em sock'em robots). Either way, the winner is a robot who is just like the one that lost and the one that lost is essentially the same as the winner. Unless one is fighting on our behalf against one planning to destroy us, the lack of a difference makes the fight absolutely pointless.

 

[esperandote]

They would conclude that it would be better for them to make a truce and kill the humans that are making them fight to each other.

 

[Athinira]

Assuming that the terrain is the same and the robots are exactly the same down to the last molecule (like if someone mirrored the universe) then it's a tie, period.

People who argue randomness obviously has no clue what randomness actually is. Randomness doesn't "exist". Randomness is a concept invented by humans to classify events that they can't predict the outcome from because it's impossible to know (and therefore factor in) every nuance in the situation. That still doesn't change that if the situation is absolutely 100% pure equal on both sides, then randomness doesn't exist.

Even a coin toss isn't truly random. It's just more or less unpredictable.

 

[GiantRaven]

Which one would be victorious? Between the first robot (who we shall call Robot A) and his fully functional identical twin (who, since being exactly the same, we shall also call Robot A)? Well, I personally would put money on Robot A being the victor.

If both robots are the same in every way, it becomes completely pointless to suggest one specific robot as winning (although one probably would win at some point).

 

[aHuman]

The one that first realizes that identity is not solely dependent on physical and innate properties but, rather, through choice one can affect the course and events of one's life will win.

Seconds before being decapitated by the non-existentialist counter-part.

 

[Wes1180]

The player character

 

[captainwolfos]

The one that starts attacking the other first.

It's basically like an equally matched Pokemon battle. The one that goes first will generally be the winner, discounting critical hits and the fact there is more than one attack option per Pokemon.

That's my two cents. Take it for what it is.

 

[Rhymer]

Chaos theory dictates that two systems with initial starting conditions will begin to deviate in small ways that will eventually lead to them operating differently.

So even though they were identical one robot may have more traction on one wheel, or lose slightly more power through a solder. This may affect speed or attitude (if only in one wheel/leg) and so the programming would respond to the situation differently than the other robot. Even ambient temperature in different areas of the arena would affect conductivity in minor ways and so the two robots, whilst initially computing the same solution, would be faced with infintescimally different conditions that would alter their response.

You are correct dear sir. However, if the robots are EXACTLY the same, which was the original question, as well as the environment affecting the two robots in EXACTLY the same way, there would be no deviation, simply because conditions are exactly the same in both instances. And yes, it's pretty much impossible, but hey