Here are the two problems presented by Ehud Friedgut. The first arose by Friedgut, Kindler, and me in the context of studying Lionel Levine’s infamous hat problem. The second is Lionel Levine’s infamous hat problem.
Ehud Friedgut with a few hats
Earlier problems in this series: #1 Nati Linial; #2 Chaya Keller; videotaped session.
Problem 1: Independence numbers for random induced subgraphs
For a graph 
Conjecture: For every real number 
If we look at the example 
An example coming from a random graph 
LIONEL LEVINE
Problem 2: Lionel Levine’s infamous hat problem.
Warm up problem:
It turns out that there is a strategy with 50% chance of winning. They all need to assume that there are overall an even number of black hats.
The real infamous hat problem by Lionel Levine
Now every player has an infinite tower of hats on her head and, again, the hats are taken to be white or black at random. Again each players see all the hats of other players and again the players can plan in advance a strategy for success, This time each player has to point to one of the hats on her head and the players WIN if all these hats are black.
Again, based on the hats of all others the k-th player says something like “I think the 7th hat on my head is black” or “I think the 3rd hat on my head is black” and the players win if all these statement are correct.
Conjecture: As the number of players grows the probability for success tends to zero.
Let 
Ehud explained why 
The problem was presented in this 2011 post on Tanya Khovanova’s Math Blog. Tanya also offered a new variant of her own. It was also July 2016 riddle further discussed here on the math riddles site “Using your head is permitted”
Below: Ehud and Guy
Combinatorics and more 
A nice comment on twitter
For the full thread:
The problem that Huck Bennett mentions has a concrete form due to Boris Bukh (see the “brain” tab of his webpage), namely, that
That’s a very nice problem.
In problem #1, when G is the complete graph, shouldn’t \alpha^-(G) be equal to (1-2^{-1/\tau}), acc. to the definition?
GK: You are right! corrected.
Regarding Problem 2: As noted in the paper by Kariv, val Alten, and Yeroshkin, Chris Freiling showed with a clever “hint” technique that p_2 = 0.35 as n -> \infty. (Freiling described his upper bound in June 2015 at the Summer Symposium in Real Analysis in Northfield, MN.) In Dec 2014 (unpublished) I adapted Freiling’s upper bound and showed that p_3 <= 89/256 < 0.348 \infty). This result and numerous other partial results flew back and forth in e-mails between a number of us working on variants of Levine’s problem in 2014 and 2015.
Crikey, my previous comment got garbled, maybe because of some special character. It’s known that p_2 is at least 0.35 as n becomes infinite, and Freiling showed that p_2 is at most 81/224 \approx 0.362. I adapted Freiling’s upper bound in Dec 2014 to show that p_3 is at most 89/256, which is less than 0.348, hence strictly less than p_2 for all large enough n. This is unpublished, but I could dig up the details.
Pingback: To cheer you up in difficult times 19: Nati Linial and Adi Shraibman construct larger corner-free sets from better numbers-on-the-forehead protocols | Combinatorics and more