/sci/ - Science & Math

2/3

>>11755533
Actual Monty Hall problem:
Three initial answers are a priori equally likely, host is guaranteed to randomly open an incorrect door you didn't choose.

This problem:
One answer is a priori retarded, person who buzzes in could have in principle chosen any of the answers and just so happened to have chosen the retarded answer.

>>11755557
Imagine being this retarded

>>11755557
>in real life someone chooses a wrong answer for you
>in this example someone chooses a wrong answer for you
How will OP ever recover

>>11755533
the pedi could be like the faggot OP in that /his/ thread and not give points because you don’t think the anon could have possible known it off hand
REEE

>>11755533
This is not the monty hall problem because the obviously incorrect answer was ruled out. You already ruled it out before convincing yourself to go with A. The lack of choice C does not impact your decision.

>>11755598
the real issue is that it’s not a pure probability problem. A and B are visibly qualitatively different and C even more so

>>11755570
You mean
>>in real life you know someone is going to choose an incorrect answer but you don't know which one it is in advance
>in this example someone happens to choose an answer that you already knew was wrong

>>11755533
If C is obviously wrong then switching provides no advantage. If A is the right answer you win and if B is the right answer you lose.

In Monty Hall none of the answers are obviously wrong. If A is correct then you lose. If B is correct then you win. If C is correct then you win.

>>11755643
How "Obviously Wrong" does C have to be to make staying a better strategy than switching?

>>11755690
The better question is how obviously right does your first choice have to be to make the change moot

A, because I read Mishima's book, know the story is based off of that of a real monk who committed arson, and therefore know it's the correct answer.

Also, he didn't start a civil war or want to be emperor.

>>11755690
It's more about the fact that you know C is going to be revealed to be wrong than how obviously wrong it is. This means your choice is essentially between A and B instead of between A, B and C.

If C is always revealed to be wrong then the switching is only good if B is more likely to be correct than A.

If B or C can be revealed to be wrong and A is correct, switching is a loss. If B or C are correct, switching is a win.

>>11755533
You should switch because Japan is known for having earthquakes and, although temples and other cultural monuments are destroyed through arson, I imagine this happens less in the culturally homogenous island of Japan, not to mention that arson is something more easily defended against than earthquakes.
However, since you clearly dont like the monty hall problem, I doubt switching from Arson is the answer to your riddle.
From this information, generally, a person should choose B, but in this situation the answer is more probably A.
And, upon review just now, "a deranged monk" set the original temple on fire. Through my sheer brain power I have successfully, and more importantly, logically navigated your midwit riddle perfectly.

>>11755622
either way you're left with a 50/50 of your gut choice leaning on a unknown and an unknown

>>11755728
holy shit dude I think you're onto something, get tf off 4chins and go run the gambling tables in Las Vagas

>>11755533
The correct strategy is A.

Of course, as I'm sure you know, this has nothing to do with the Monty Hall problem, and none of its conclusions apply here.

Imagine needing to guess because you haven't read Temple of the Golden Pavilion. Plebs.

>>11755533
>Behind two doors is a goat. Behind one is a car. Door C is a glass door and you can see there is a goat behind it. You are going to pick A, but before you can do so, Monty opens the glass door through some unknown selection criteria and reveals it is a goat. Should you switch?
Yeah anon this is equivalent to the Monty Hall problem.

>>11755570
But we already knew it was wrong. What was presented was not new information. This is not a Monty Hall problem because the answers are not random.

The Monty hall problem is based on random choices, i.e. your answers are 1,2, or 3. If you already know something about the correctness of the answers it is not an applicable scenario

>>11755533
I'm sorry but you have to be a fucking moron to believe these two scenarios are correct. I typed up a long post about how you're mathematically retarded but I deleted it because this is a troll post anyway.

>>11755690
Use Bayes theorem.

It's a simple algebra set-up

>>11758197
>But we already knew it was wrong.
I still think it could've been a trick question. How do we know aliens didn't make that monk go crazy and burn it down?

>>11758268
Well, that's true.

>>11758232
why not. why can't '% sureness' of a correct choice play into the expected strategy of staying.

>>11755533
i can see why you don't understand monty hall

>>11755598
>>11755614
all true but the biggest difference is that in the monty hall problem, the host can't open the door you chose.

what makes monty hall interesting is the fact that the host's door selection is not independent of yours. therefore, you get information when he opens one of the other doors.

in this faggot OP's scenario, you could have chosen C, and then the other guy would have immediately ruled it out

>>11755533
Monty Hall is retarded. Your odds of choosing correctly are 50/50, the locking out of a an incorrect choice provides no additional information. If you've chosen the correct door, they will open one of the two incorrect doors. If you've chosen an incorrect door, they will open the other incorrect door.

I just do not understand the logic. Your odds are 1/3 from the start. They're reduced to 1/2 by opening the door. No information is provided, your initial action is irrelevant.

>>11758848
Let's play the monty hall game. You buy in for $10 every game and get $25 back if you win. You aren't allowed to switch. Since you have a 50% chance of winning, this has a positive EV for you and we should keep playing.

>>11758885
Nah, I'm broke.

I'll write a program to do it later. To be quite blunt, shit's fucking retarded and the mere notion of such absolute nonsense really pisses me off.

>>11755533
Let's assume you have a good hunch, and A is the correct choice 50% of the time, and B/C are equally likely.

So in the worlds where A is right answer, 1/3 of the time, Kyle, the random guesser will choose A. 2/3 of the time the Kyle, the random guesser will choose either B or C. In this world, if you switch you will lose.... 1/2 * 2/3 = 1/3 times

In the worlds where A is the wrong answer, Kyle will choose A 1/3 of the time. In this world, you will be forced to pick another guess so we can ignore it. So that leaves Kyle picking the right answer 1/3 of the time, and the wrong answer 1/3 of the time. So the world that matches this scenario, we assume A is wrong(1/2), and Kyle chooses the wrong answer(1/3). In this world, if you switch off of A, you win... 1/2*1/3 = 1/6 times.

Since we are unable to determine which of the two worlds we are in, switching is not the optimal strategy.

>>11755533
>ignore your hunch
>>>/x/

>>11758779
thank you for this good explanation anon that even i, a retard, can understand