/sci/ - Science & Math

I'm not convinced.

I claim you always have 1/3 chance of winning the car.

You are on a game show and you have 3 identical doors.
Behind one door is a car.
Behind each of the other two is a goat.

You want to pick the door with the car but you don't know which one it is.

Once you pick a door, the host will flip a coin.
If you picked a car, the host will always ask if you want to switch.
If you picked a goat and the coin lands heads, the host will ask if you want to switch.
If you picked a goat and the coin lands tails, the host will simply reveal your goat and you lose.

So you picked a door and the host asks if you want to switch.

Should you switch?

>>8351577
>/sci/-related memes
sure

Okay, memes aside, I just don't get this /sci/
you begin the game with each door having a 1/3 chance of being the car, right?
Okay, so then let's say you pick door number 1
Monty then reveals that door number 3 is a goat and asks if you wish to switch to door number one.
Now how does switching give me better odds?
If it was 1/3 on each at first, with the third door eliminated, it would just switch to a 1/2 chance, right?
How in any sense could it stay at the whole 1/3 stance? I mean, if the third door is now confirmed to be a goat, making it utterly useless, you can remove it from the equation, right? It's like a 0 in a subtraction problem now, it has no effect.
With that being said, if we remove the third door we end up with two doors, which would make it a 1/2 chance not a 2/3 chance, after all how can you carry the 2/3 over to the second door if you already know that 1/2 of that 2/3 is a goat?

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one
door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who
knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?"

So what do you do /sci/?

Next Question!

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say
No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?"

What should you do?

Suppose you follow the normal Monty Hall game:

• there are 3 doors, behind one of them is a car, behind two of them is goat.

• host knows which door hides what
• host opens another door to reveal a goat after you choose one door

Now let’s change the next step.
Instead of offering the player to switch choice, the host says:

• disregard the door I just showed you. It is irrelevant. You either keep you choice or switch.

Would that mean the chance of getting the car is now 1:2 instead of 2:3?

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?

Anybody who refuses to acknowledge 'switch' is the correct answer to the monty hall problem, prepare to be BTFO.

This game simulate the monty hall problem and it is quite clear after many rounds that the statistical advantage of switching is real.

Paul Erdos BTFO.

http://www.stayorswitch.com/

Ok, easy problem here, you switch door and your success rate is 66.6667% we all know this one.

My question is, does it apply to Deal or No Deal as well? We are left with two cases, one with $1 million and one with $1 (you picked one of them earlier), is the best option still to switch? Is the chance of winning really 25/26 if you switch since the chance of getting $1 also seems like it'd be 25/26. I'm a really dumb guy but it seems different to me since there isn't just 2 end results (goat/car), but many of them (26 cases from $1 to $1mil), however you could still see them as 2 end results ($1mil/Not $1mil or alternatively $1/Not $1). I hope I'm making sense here, I'm not a native english speaker

I don't understand probability.

Take the Monty Hall problem. The solution to the problem is that, since you picked a door with 1/3 chance of being right, switching to the door you didn't choose has a 2/3 chance of being right.

But it seems contingent on "intent".

The problem seems to only work if Monty only opens a wrong door. If Monty came out on stage, and forgot which door was which, and guessed - and guessed right, then wouldn't it become 50/50? But to a person watching, the two events are identical.

If we're going to say that no, it always comes out to 2/3rds for switching, even if it just chance that allows him to switch, then what happens if we have a person on each door? He comes out, picks one persons door at random and opens it. Then, he asks the two remaining people if they want to switch. Isn't the logic exactly the same for each person - that they choose a door with 1/3 chance, so switching should give 2/3 chance?

After one door is opened, the new odds are 50/50. This means there's no advantage to changing.

Nothing will ever convince me otherwise.

>“Suppose you’re on a game show, and you’re given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car, behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say #1, and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door, say #3, which has a goat. He says to you, "Do you want to pick door #2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice of doors?”-Marilyn vos Savant

Okay I'm willing to admit i didn't 'get' the monty hall problem first time I heard it and didn't see how switching doors would help (or hinder)…

But come here, does no one else think that's Marilyn vos Savant was being a *bit* of a shit lord here? She really doesn't make her parameters clear enough (that it's the host must *always* reveal a goat).

It's suppose to be a classic 'gotta' that even the of mathematic wizards fell for but it only really works because she's confused what the underliner premise. It's not that clever it's just poorly explained.

inb4 women treatment in maths.

Stupid Monty Hall problem.

I accept the numbers but it still feels wrong to me,grumble, grumble.