/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15826300
I read the wiki for the "paradox" >>15826311 referenced. This image perfectly explains my method. I think you are trolling because your last post doesn't make any sense. You cannot justify 2/3 mathematically for your modified example because it is wrong.
>>15826311
>In a survey of 53 Psychology freshmen taking an introductory probability course, 35 incorrectly responded 1/2; only 3 students correctly responded 2/3.
Holy fuck people are fucking retarded. I thought they were "pretending". At least /sci/ did better than the /psy/ freshmen. I should've known better. As an insulated 99.9% IQ, I always overestimate normies.
>Given one ball, and two boxes where one has at least one ball, what are your odds you picked the box with two gold balls? The answer to that is 50/50.
This is atrociously written. Do you mean 2 boxes with 2 balls each, 3 gold and 1 silver, and you have already drawn a gold? If so, you are wrong. Simply removing the third box has no effect on the outcome (as >>15826331 correctly says), because it contains no gold balls. The question is conditional on having initially drawn a gold ball, of which 2 of 3 are in the first box.