/sci/ - Science & Math

Yeah, it's bullshit. Like lmao, imagine the same with a coin toss. What if there was a third side to the coin but the third side was removed in the coin factory and now your probability of head vs tail is 66%? Makes no sense.

OP please stop being a fucking retard and write a Python script and verify the result for yourself, stop wasting other people's time with your idiocy

>>14716052
Because which two doors you're left with depends on the door you chose first.

Pick one door out of thousand doors, then host opens 998 doors, would you swap?

>>14716052
Because when you choose one door, there is a 2/3 chance the car is in some other door.

Go Google a simulation and run it a few hundred times and see you're wrong.

Or look at the proof.

This is ezpz with information theory.

>>14716052
When Monty is guaranteed to open a goat door, doing so provides no information about the door you chose, you have the exact same chances you chose the car or a goat (1/3 and 2/3). With two doors, you have a 1/2 chance of choosing the car or a goat. That's the only difference.

>>14716052
>Why is this different than starting with only two doors?
Because the odds of winning by switching are the odds of picking the wrong door out of three, while the odds of winning with two doors are just the odds of picking the right door out of two.

>>14716052
>The information is the same
It's not. You have the information of which door you picked. If they shuffled the doors or gave you a lobotomy then you'd lose that information and then it would indeed be the same as starting with only two doors.

Why do you plebs keep arguing about "information" when OP's scenario is an altogether different problem?

>>14716241
>You have the information of which door you picked.
That's wrong.

>If they shuffled the doors or gave you a lobotomy then you'd lose that information and then it would indeed be the same as starting with only two doors.
That's also wrong.

>>14716254
> OP's scenario is an altogether different problem
OP is neither a scenario nor a problem, it's an image referencing a canonical scenario/problem.

>>14716256
>That's wrong.
That's wrong.
>That's also wrong.
That's also wrong.

>>14716259
>OP is neither a scenario nor a problem
In OP scenario/problem, there are only two doors to begin with. This is a different scenario/problem. What aspect of this observation confuses you?

>>14716261
Which door you pick is completely irrelevant. They're all the same to you, brainlet.

>>14716052
Can't believe niggers are still butthurt about this simple problem.

I can't understand what is even confusing here, the question here is basically what is the probability that you chose a car, and should you switch. When one of the remaining doors is revealed to be a goat, it's P(car) becomes zero, there is 1/3 chance the door you chose has a car and 2/3 chance the other door has a car.

>>14716256
>doesn't elaborate
I'm going to assume he's right

>>14716281
>When one of the remaining doors is revealed to be a goat, it's P(car) becomes zero
Which doesn't matter because it's simply out of the game.

>>14716283
See >>14716275

>>14716285
If it was the car door and out of the game it would certainly matter.

>>14716285
> what is conditional probability
Go back to school nigger

>>14716289
>If it was the car door and out of the game it would certainly matter.
It's not the same game with extra information. It's a different game where that door doesn't exist and any information about it is irrelevant.

>>14716292
It's not a conditional probability problem.

>>14716299
It is, you are just an illiterate lazy nigger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

>>14716302
Not an argument. Trying to make it into a conditional probability problem is why you mouth breathers always get it wrong and why these threads keep appearing.

>>14716272
I can't tell if you're an ESL dropout or a schizo. Guess it doesn't really matter.

>>14716299
I didn't say it's the same game.

>>14716275
Which door you pick is completely relevant. They're all different to you, brainlet.

>>14716309
>>14716313
I can tell you're extremely asshurt and don't know how to respond. :^)

>>14716312
Okay. I'm just saying talking about the P(car) of that door is moot. At the beginning it's 1/3. Then you're in a different game where the door just doesn't figure into it

>>14716303
P(you chose the car|Monty revealed a goat) = (1/3)(1)/((1/3)(1)+(2/3)P(Monty revealed a goat|you chose a goat)) = 1/(1+2P(Monty revealed a goat|you chose a goat))

It's clearly a conditional probability question.

>>14716319
>I can tell you're extremely asshurt and don't know how to respond. :^)
Still impossible to tell if you can't read English or if you're just a schizo. Any more clues to help? :^)

>>14716324
As I said, you can make it into one but it's pointless, retarded and keeps these threads coming. The problem can be summed up like this:
The car is either behind your door or the other door. There's a 1/3 chance that it's behind your door. Do you switch?
The whole deal with you choosing a door and the host revealing a goat is a bunch of irrelevant theatrics. The only relevant part of it is to establish the 1/3 probability of your door having a car behind it.

>>14716328
Sorry about your low IQ.

>>14716337
Good one, very clever

>>14716335
If you choose a door with a goat at the start there is a 50% that the game gets discarded due to the host opening a car door.
Meanwhile if you chose the the door with the car instead the host will always open a goat door.

>>14716348
>If you choose a door with a goat at the start there is a 50% that the game gets discarded due to the host opening a car door.
Now you sound like you're losing your mind.

>>14716256
>That's wrong.
>That's also wrong.
wrong

>>14716385
See >>14716335

>>14716387
See>>14716052

>>14716335
>As I said, you can make it into one
You said making it into one is why people get it wrong. How is it wrong?

>The car is either behind your door or the other door. There's a 1/3 chance that it's behind your door.
But that's wrong, retard. The chance that it's behind your door depends on the probability of Monty revealing a goat door. It's a conditional probability.

>The only relevant part of it is to establish the 1/3 probability of your door having a car behind it.
Yeah, the only relevant part of the question is establishing the answer based on the conditions in the question. LOL, what a retard.

>>14716547
>You said making it into one is why people get it wrong. How is it wrong?
Notice how your question is completely incongruent with your statement.

>But that's wrong, retard.
Oh, you're an actual subhuman cretin who doesn't understand the problem. Thanks for illustrating my point so perfectly.

The thing that filters retards here is basically the question. The question here isn't - "what is the probability that the door you chose has a car at the back" , the question here is whether you should switch your choice, when a door is revealed to have a goat.

The interesting thing is that, revealing doesn't even matter, you should always switch your choice if given a chance, but with the door revealed this becomes even more rewarding, because there is now exactly 1 door (the other one revealed to be a goat), which has double the chance of having a car at it's back than the door you earlier chose.

Obviously the condition here must be that host only reveals the door with a goat.

>>14716566
>The question here isn't - "what is the probability that the door you chose has a car at the back" , the question here is whether you should switch your choice
It's the same question, mouth breathing subhuman.

>>14716567
>what is the probability that the door you chose has a car at the back
>"yes"

>>14716567
No it isn't. The question is again - "whether you should switch your choice". Learn to comprehend 80 IQ nigger.

Without loss of generality we can assume you picked door 1 so there are the possiblities
>(Car, Goat, Goat) and host chooses door 2
>(Goat, Car, Goat) and host chooses door 2
>(Goat, Goat, Car) and host chooses door 2
>(Car, Goat, Goat) and host chooses door 3
>(Goat, Car, Goat) and host chooses door 3
>(Goat, Goat, Car) and host chooses door 3
All are equaly likely.

Now we happen to get one of those situations where the host just happens to open a goat door leaving the possibilities
>(Car, Goat, Goat) and host chooses door 2
>(Goat, Goat, Car) and host chooses door 2
>(Car, Goat, Goat) and host chooses door 3
>(Goat, Car, Goat) and host chooses door 3
still equally likely.
In case 1+3 you win by stick with the door and in case 2+4 you win by switching. Therefore it doesn't matter if you switch.

>>14716574
>>14716571
The probability that you win if you don't switch is the probability that the car is behind the door you picked, that is 1/3. There is nothing more to this problem. You are a subhuman mouth breather.

>>14716576
>>14716578
You are wrong. Learn to read and comprehend, most importantly be humble and stop being an arrogant lazy nigger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

>>14716578
that is only if the host is guaranteed to open a goat door

>>14716584
>>14716586
You are quite literally subhuman.

>>14716584
On the wikipedia page there is the extra line that the host knows what's behind the doors. In the real Monty Hall problem that's impossible since they don't use glass doors. So the wikipedia page is about an entirely different problem.

>>14716052
Don't care. Not switching.

>>14716590
>i am schizophrenic

Look, if /sci/ can't even understand the normal version where the host knows what's behind the doors, they certainly aren't capable of understanding the difference between that and the version where they open at random. Even though both games can be drawn as a tree in 20 seconds on a napkin.

>>14716590
>host opens door with the prize
>uh oh....
are you mentally challenged or what?

>>14716638
>they certainly aren't capable of understanding the difference between that and the version where they open at random
There is no difference by definition.

>both games can be drawn as a tree
Oh. You're a mouthbreathing subhuman. That explains your schizophrenia above.

>>14716052
just get it right the first time and thats it

>>14716052
They have to distract you from Jewish tricks with nonsense defenses.

>>14716052
I know right? It's so obvious the cube will just plop out

>>14716584
This poster is covering up Jewish tricks.

>>14716551
>Notice how your question is completely incongruent with your statement.
It's not. Show how making it into a conditional probability is why people get it wrong.

>Oh, you're an actual subhuman cretin who doesn't understand the problem.
I understand the problem much more than you do. I proved the answer is dependent on Monty's probability of revealing a goat. You have no response. Cope more.

>>14716566
>The question here isn't - "what is the probability that the door you chose has a car at the back" , the question here is whether you should switch your choice, when a door is revealed to have a goat.
The chance you chose the car is the chance that switching doesn't get you the car. No relevant difference.

>The interesting thing is that, revealing doesn't even matter, you should always switch your choice if given a chance
No, you're retarded. If Monty does nothing then switching your choice is no different from your initial choice, 1/3 chance of getting the car. And if Monty does reveal a goat, you should only switch when the chance of Monty revealing a goat was 2/3 or more.

>>14716576
That implies the host chose randomly and didn't knowingly reveal a goat.

>>14716664
>There is no difference by definition.
There is

P(you chose the car|Monty revealed a goat) = (1/3)(1)/((1/3)(1)+(2/3)P(Monty revealed a goat|you chose a goat)) = 1/(1+2P(Monty revealed a goat|you chose a goat))

In the first case, P(Monty revealed a goat|you chose a goat) = 1 and the chance switching gets you the care is 2/3

In the second case P(Monty revealed a goat|you chose a goat) = 1/2 and the chance switching gets you the car is 1/2

QED

>>14716780
>Show how making it into a conditional probability is why people get it wrong.
This whole thread.

>I understand the problem much more than you do
Then why do you struggle to understand that your chance of winning by sticking to your door are 1/3 (just as it was in the beginning), and why do you think conditional probability is necessary to get an answer when all you really need is to know is that probabilities sum up to 1?

>>14716052
>Why

>>14716812
>There is
There isn't. The problem only concerns itself with the subset of cases where the host reveals a goat, as per the problem statement itself. Whether this is by chance or by design is irrelevant. I'm not reading your post, by the way, nor will I read any attempt to dispute the basic fact presented in this post.

>>14716814
>This whole thread.
Where?

>Then why do you struggle to understand that your chance of winning by sticking to your door are 1/3
That would only be true if the chance of Monty revealing a goat is 1. If it's less than 1 then Monty revealing a goat makes it more likely you have the car already. This is because if you have the car, Monty must reveal a goat, but if you don't have the car, Monty is less likely to reveal a goat.

>>14716822
Imbecile. Thanks for demonstrating how trying to turn it into a conditional probability problem causes 105 IQ NPCs like you to bluescreen.

>>14716822
>if you don't have the car, Monty is less likely to reveal a goat
That's not the problem, that's your hallucination.

>>14716812
That post is his reply to me. I respect what you're doing, but he clearly dislikes changing his mind more than he dislikes being wrong, even though he clearly hates both and is therefore angry now.
He's not going to go through the minor effort of parsing inline fractions and checking if Bayes's equation is applied correctly just to harm himself according to his preferences.

>>14716818
>There isn't.
Wrong, see the proof in >>14716812

>The problem only concerns itself with the subset of cases where the host reveals a goat, as per the problem statement itself.
Yes, no one said anything different. Here I'll dumb it down even further for you, by listing all the equally likely possibilities if Monty chooses randomly. Then you can calculate the probability switching gets you the car from the subset of cases where Monty revealed a goat:

First case
1. You chose the car, Monty reveals goat 1
2. You chose the car, Monty reveals goat 2
3. You chose goat 1, Monty reveals goat 2
4. You chose goat 1, Monty reveals the car
5. You chose goat 2, Monty reveals goat 1
6. You chose goat 2, Monty reveals the car

Can you divide two numbers? Let's see.

>>14716824
Not an argument, try again. You utterly failed to show where anyone treating the problem as a conditional probability made a mistake. And you utterly failed to show the answer is 1/3 regardless of Monty's chance of revealing a goat. If you don't, then I'll just take this as an admittal that you lied and you're wrong.

>>14716833
>That's not the problem
It is if Monty the chance of Monty revealing a goat wasn't 1. Try reading.

>>14716848
>You utterly failed to show where anyone treating the problem as a conditional probability made a mistake.
Your whole post is full of schizophrenic ramblings rooted in your insistence to treat it as a conditional probability problem. You can, but it's unnecessary and it confuses 105 IQ NPCs like you to no end.

>>14716855
Thanks for admitting you lied and you're wrong.

/thread

>>14716840
> see the proof in >>14716812
I agree, you've proven you're an idiot who doesn't know the problem.

>>14716840
LOL. Didn't read.
See >>14716818

>>14716858
Not a disproof. Try again.

So far, the proof stands and you've lost.

>>14716852
>Try reading.
Try reading what, your hallucinations? No thanks.

>>14716857
>you're wrong.
How can I be wrong if you fully concede that the probability of winning if you stick to your door is 1/3, just as it was in the beginning? :^)

>>14716859
So you can't even divide two numbers. lmao

>>14716861
No, we both win. Your proof that you're an idiot who doesn't know the problem is correct.

>>14716862
>Try reading what
The post you're replying to. It's completely correct.

>>14716867
Do you enjoy writing shart that nobody reads? lol

>>14716873
And completely irrelevant.

>>14716869
Still no disproof. Try again, loser.

>>14716879
Why would I try to disprove that you're an idiot who doesn't know the problem is correct?

>>14716875
I enjoy embarrassing egotistical retards like you to the point where you can't even divide two numbers because you know you'll be BTFO if you do. LOL

>>14716883
You don't have to try to disprove anything, you can just let it stand and lose the argument. That's fine too, loser.

>>14716884
Keep "embarrassing" me in front of your imaginary audience of 85 IQs. In reality, nobody reads your shart.

>>14716889
I agree 100% with your proof that you're an idiot who doesn't know the problem. Why are you so mad that I agree with your proof?

>>14716892
>Keep "embarrassing" me
No need, you do it yourself every time you admit you can't even divide two numbers.

>>14716896
>you can't even divide two numbers.
It's a good thing there is no need to divide anything in this problem, then. Dumb subhuman.

>>14716895
I know you agree with my proof that the answer is different depending on whether Monty knowingly reveals a goat or randomly reveals a goat, otherwise you would be able to counter it. Every post in which you fail to do so is just pure cope. This is your last (You) until you do so, loser.

>>14716898
>It's a good thing there is no need to divide anything in this problem
There is a need to divide two numbers if you want to prove your claim that the number of cases where switching gets you the car is 2/3 of the cases where Monty randomly reveals a goat. But you won't do so, because you know you're wrong.

>>14716903
>whether Monty knowingly reveals a goat or randomly reveals a goat
Thanks for admitting you don't know the problem. I also agree 100% with your summary of your proof.

>the answer is different depending on whether Monty knowingly reveals a goat or randomly reveals a goat,
What's the point educating these "people"? Their vague knowledge of middle school math only makes them talk and act more subhuman.

>>14716906
>prove your claim that the number of cases where switching gets you the car is 2/3
Only the cases where a goat is revealed are under consideration, as per problem statement. In 1/3 of those cases you will have initially picked the car. That means 2/3 times you will win by switching. It's necessary to sterilize you and your relatives.

>>14716908
Hello samefag

>>14716914
>Only the cases where a goat is revealed are under consideration
Yes, no one said anything different. There are four equally likely cases where a goat is revealed randomly, and two of them will result in you getting the car if you switch.

>In 1/3 of those cases you will have initially picked the car.
Wrong, it's 1/2. See >>14716840

You already lost. Just stop posting.

>>14716944
You and your relatives need to be sterilized.

>>14716840
You forgot to include the equally likely possibilities where one or both of the goats climb into the car.

>>14716948
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting I'm right.

>>14717015
There is no arguing with clinical imbeciles. "People" on your intellectual level have no human rights, and need to receive special care to ensure they don't perpetuate their misery.

>>14717023
>There is no arguing with clinical imbeciles.
I know, all you do is throw out childish insults instead of making an argument or conceding. It's OK, I already know you lost.

>>14716082
/thread

>>14716052
Yeah I don't get it, why do 50-50 retards think the probability of your initial guess being correct magically goes up to 50% just because the host showed you a goat?

>>14717819
Knowing more information about a system affects the probability space you sample from. The answer has to be 50/50. If you thought you were choosing 1/3, that's worse odds than flipping a coin.

The same applies to any measurement where you know the probability space description is incomplete. It's also always true that in the case where you make one choice, your odds can never be worse than 50/50 until new information is revealed.

>>14717819
Because of the host is revealing doors randomly, he is guaranteed to reveal a goat after you chose the car, but only half likely to reveal a goat after you chose a goat. So revealing a goat randomly increases the probability you chose the car.

>>14718208
stfu retard

>>14717833
>>14718208
>t.

>>14716052
I'm not reading any of this thread.

Here's the intuitive explanation -

Imagine that instead of 3 choices you start with 1,000 choices. Here's the sequence -

1. Pick one door out of 1,000.
2. Now the host opens 998 doors to reveal goats. This leaves your choice and on other door closed.
3. You can now switch your choice if you want to.

In your first choice, you have 1/1,000 odds of picking the winning door.

In your second choice, the unchosen door that is left closed has 1/2 odds of being the winning door.

Two ways to look at this.

1. Imagine 3 doors with 2 goats and 1 car. You choose door #1 and the host shows you a car behind door #3. What are the chances you chose a goat behind door #1?
2. Imagine 100 doors with 99 goats and 1 car. You choose door #1 and the hoast reveals goats behind doors #2-99. What are the chances that there's a goat behind door #1?

Revealing what's behind a door ABSOLUTELY CHANGES what you know about the door you chose. That is what people keep getting stuck on. They keep thinking wrongly that the chances are the same whether you switch doors or not and that is not at all the case.

>>14719467
>I'm not reading any of this thread.
>Here's the intuitive explanation
>shits out the dumbest, most contrived explanation ITT
Perfect.

>>14719483
>Revealing what's behind a door ABSOLUTELY CHANGES what you know about the door you chose
No, it doesn't, you mental patient. The odds of winning by sticking to that door remain exactly as before.

>>14719485
Not him but you are literally retarded. That's exactly the right approach to understand this problem intuitively. You should probably stop posting here forever because you're too fucking stupid.

>>14719502
Sorry about your mental illness. The right approach to understading this problem intuitively doesn't involve any of your schizorambling about a thousand goats.

Just write out all the possibilities and it will make sense. Provided you always pick door A:

>Door A has the goat, the host selects a random ungoated door for you to chose from
>Door B has the goat, the host selects it for you to chose between A and B
>Door C has the goat, the host selects it for you to chose between A and C

So out of 3 equally likely possibilities there's only one where A is the right door and 2 where the other door is the right door.

>>14719349
>>14719359
Not an argument, you lose.

>but where's muh argument??!?

>>14719467
>In your second choice, the unchosen door that is left closed has 1/2 odds of being the winning door.
No. If Monty knowingly reveals 998 goat doors then it doesn't change your chance you chose the winning door. He would have revealed 998 goats regardless of what door you chose. So the chance switching gets you the winning door is 999/1000.

If Monty randomly revealed 998 goat doors then you would be correct, because it's just as likely you chose the winning door as it is that both you and Monty didn't.

>>14719483
>Revealing what's behind a door ABSOLUTELY CHANGES what you know about the door you chose.
Not if Monty was guaranteed to reveal the same thing regardless of what you chose.

>>14719492
No. If Monty reveals a door you didn't choose randomly, that increases the chance you chose the car. It's just as likely you randomly chose the car as it is likely both you and Monty didn't.

>>14719853
>>14719860
By that logic, the chance of winning is 1/3

>>14716576
Yes.
College level Statistics:
1/3 chance of winning out of each 3 doors.
(Expanding this for retarded answers to "what if 100 doors): 1/100 chance of winning if there are 100 doors.

Once there are 2 doors left,
you have 1/3 of chance winning when staying, or 1/3 level by switching the door
For 100 doors, you have 1/100 chance of winning when staying, or 1/100 chance when switching to another door that's left.

Result is equally the same. 1/3 or 1/3 . Or 1/100 or 1/100 on 100 doors.

>>14716808
>That implies the host chose randomly and didn't knowingly reveal a goat.
Psychology and other things don't apply here. It is not a Poker where you draw or fold based on how a person looks.

>>14719467
You retards can't read. They reveal 998 doors, you are still left with only 2 doors. You are left with 1/1000 or 1/1000 probability, and yet again it doesn't matter if you switch.

>>14719860
>If Monty reveals a door you didn't choose randomly, that increases the chance you chose the car
Holey metal illness.

>>14719606
Thanks for admitting I'm right. Facsimile revealing a goat door increases the chance you already have the car.

>>14719902
>>If Monty reveals a door you didn't choose randomly, that increases the chance you chose the car

It absolutely doesn't matter if Monty knows, doesn't know , if he's a she or trans, if he wears a wig or a dress, if he forgot to brush his hair or has purple hair.
It absolutely doesn't matter if Monty blinks or scratches his behind.
There's absolutely nothing psychological in this.
Only women are looking for psychology where none exists.

>>14719916
You're replying to the wrong post.

>>14719914
Nothing can retroactively alter the 1/3 chance that you got the car. Why does this board attract so many clinical retards?

The solution is to pick the correct door the first time and not switch. Obviously.
>>14716099
checked, but no. I know the answer beforehand, as I had obviously bribed the working crew. You see, the value of the car is $37,000, and the cost to bribe each of them was $200, excepting two managerial types, who each demanded $500. $2200 spent to increase my odds of winning $37,000 from 66% to 100% increases my EV, so I took that option, drove away with my new car, and "forgot" to pay the crew. They can't do shit because they'd be fired if they ratted on me. This (before taxes) is an AEV increase from $24420 to $37000, also known to corporate staticians as a Win Condition.

>>14719874
It is 1/3 if Monty always reveals a goat. It is 1/2 if he revealed a goat randomly.

>>14719537
>So out of 3 equally likely possibilities
These are only equally likely if the host always reveals a goat door.

>>14719875
>you have 1/3 of chance winning when staying, or 1/3 level by switching the door
No, if Monty randomly reveals a goat then its just as likely you chose the car as it is both you and Monty didn't. The chance you chose the car increases to 1/2.

>The chance you chose the car increases to 1/2.

>>14719902
Chance of you choosing the car and Monty revealing a goat = (1/3)(1) = 1/3

Chance of you choosing a goat and Monty revealing a goat randomly = (2/3)(1/2) = 1/3

It's just as likely you chose the car as you didn't given Monty revealed a goat, so it's 1/2.

>>14719953
Chance of you choosing the car: 1/3
Chance of you being a clinical retard: 1

>>14719923
>Nothing can retroactively alter the 1/3 chance that you got the car.
I'm surety you never passed high school and didn't learn about conditional probability. New information alters prior probabilities. Specifically, when Monty reveals a goat randomly, that is information that increases the chance you chose the car, because Monty must reveal a goat when you choose the car, but he only has a half chance of revealing a goat when you choose a goat.

>New information alters prior probabilities

>>14719916
>It absolutely doesn't matter if Monty knows
It absolutely does. The probability you have the car after Monty reveals a goat is dependent on the chance of Monty revealing a goat. See >>14716324

>>14719961
> when Monty reveals a goat randomly
>>14719953
> if he revealed a goat randomly
>>14719937
> Monty randomly reveals a goat
>>14719926
> if he revealed a goat randomly
wtf is wrong with your brain

>>14719971
1200000 rpm.

>>14719942
>>The chance you chose the car increases to 1/2.
Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem

>>14719960
Not an argument. Try again. This time, find a flaw in my proof.

>>14719965
>New information alters prior probabilities
Yes. Welcome to basic probability theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability

Probability is just a measure of your own lack of information.
The door you pick doesn't have a 1/3 "chance" of being a car. It's either 100% a car or 100% a goat IF you know what's behind the door.

As your information increases so can change your probability.

>>14719971
You're not even contradicting what I said in any of those posts. You agree.

>>14719990
Now look at the pic that goes with that post and see if you can figure out what's wrong, clinical subhuman cretin.

>>14719991
>The door you pick doesn't have a 1/3 "chance" of being a car.

Consider the 1000 door game. The searched probability is
[eqn]P(\text{Your first pick has the car | Monty reveals only goats}) = \frac{P(\text{Your first pick has the car})}{P(\text{Monty reveals only goats})} [/eqn]
Now we use the law of total probability
[eqn]P(\text{Monty reveals only goats}) = P(\text{Monty reveals only goats| Your first pick has the car}) P(\text{Your first pick has the car}) + P(\text{Monty reveals only goats| Your first pick has a goat}) P(\text{Your first pick has a goat}) [/eqn]
We can calculate the probabilities one by one.
[eqn]P(\text{Monty reveals only goats| Your first pick has the car}) = 1\\
P(\text{Your first pick has the car}) = \frac{1}{1000}\\
P(\text{Monty reveals only goats| Your first pick has a goat}) = \frac{1}{999}\\
P(\text{Your first pick has a goat}) = \frac{999}{1000}[/eqn]
Now we can plug this all into the first equation
[eqn]P(\text{Your first pick has the car | Monty reveals only goats}) = \frac{\frac{1}{1000}}{\frac{1}{1000} + \frac{1}{999} \frac{999}{1000}} = \frac{1}{2} [/eqn]

>>14719978
So you agree. Great.

>>14720002
>Consider the 1000 door game.

>>14719995
The only thing wrong I see is your arrogance considering your complete failure to refute anything I've said.

>>14720002
>1/999
That assumes Monty is revealing doors randomly. If he's knowingly revealing goat doors then it's 1.

>>14720017
Nothing can retroactively change your 1/3 chance of picking the car. It's over and done with the moment you choose. The host's actions don't influence the past.

>>14719937
>>you have 1/3 of chance winning when staying, or 1/3 level by switching the door
>No, if Monty randomly reveals a goat then its just as likely you chose the car as it is both you and Monty didn't. The chance you chose the car increases to 1/2.
The only time your probability increases to 1/2 is if you RECOUNT ALL probabilities.
You can either recount ALL probabilities (not just the random one you wish) or you do not.
If you recount ALL probabilities, you are left with 2 doors in either scenario, and probability of either door is 1/2.

It is not some woman's scenario, "oh I may have picked the wrong door, maybe the host is helping me". No woman's logic is involved in this. It's pure math.

>>14719920
Yeah. I was adding to yours.

Imagine you had a 6-sided die, but with only the numbers 1-3 on it (each appearing twice).
You roll the die hidden under a cup, and have to call out a number. You win if you call out the right number.
Before the number is revealed to you, Monty takes a peek, and tells you a number, different to the one you chose, that it definitely ISN'T.
He then gives you a chance to change your mind.

>Roll die
>call out ONE
>Monty looks
>"it's not a TWO!"

Now it's twice as likely to be a three. Trust the math.

>>14716052
imagine they dont even open a wrong door. you pick and then your decision is whether you want to change from the one you picked or take BOTH of the other doors. its the same thing really. you are just picking between a 1/3 or 2/3rd chance

>>14720086
>. you are just picking between a 1/3 or 2/3rd chance
NO.
You have 3 doors. Probability of each is 1/3. You picked the door - its probability is 1/3. You switch to any other door - probability stays the same, 1/3, for a new door.

>>14719994
agree with what

>>14720032
>Nothing can retroactively change your 1/3 chance of picking the car.
New information can. The probability given Monty randomly revealed a goat is not the same as the initial probability.

>The host's actions don't influence the past.
Right, it just influences your knowledge of the past, which is what the probability represents. Try reading the link I gave you.

>>14716052
probability of the door you did not choose to be the right one is 1/3 in beginning as the door you chose. Then new information alters both probabilities 1/2.

>>14716052
suppose we were too players with different doors and goat is revealed do we both switch?

>>14720036
>The only time your probability increases to 1/2 is if you RECOUNT ALL probabilities.
OK? Once Monty reveals a goat randomly, you know the events in which you chose a goat and Monty revealed the car did not occur. The remaining events have their probabilities increased proportionally. That makes it a 1/2 chance you chose the car. Did you try doing what you said needed to be done or did you just assume you were right?

>>14716052

>>14720084
If Monty always tells you a number you didn't choose then this gives you no information at all, and your chance that you chose the correct number remains 1/3. If Monty could have revealed it's not the number you chose but happened not to, then this increases the chance that it's the number you chose from 1/3 to 1/2.

>>14720109
The posts you responded to.

>>14720254
Only if Monty revealed a goat randomly.

>>14720295
50/50 it either does or doesn't

>>14720313
>Everything is 50/50. Either it happens or it doesn't.

>>14720270
If you choose different doors then Monty is forced to open the only remaining door (so not a random choice) and no information is gained that would make it advantageous to switch to the other's door.

>>14720312
exactly

I understand it I think but am I stupid if I'd rather go with my gut instinct than some hypothetical probability simulation?

>>14720397
yeah.

>>14720308
sure but what does it have to do with the monty hall problem, it's like you're imagining your own problem and talking about your imagination instead. narcissitic af

>>14716052
Apart from "make a probability tree", the key points to remember are:

(1) It fundamentally does not matter to the outcome of this problem from the start position how the doors are opened. One at a time; or altogether? It makes no difference.

(2) However: Monty knows which door has the car.

(3) Deliberately opening the door on a goat IS new information; but it has not altered the start position.

If you choose door A at the start, you have a 1:3 chance of being right. This means there is a 2:3 chance of the car being in B or C. Monty opening door B DOES NOT AFFECT THE ORIGINAL STATE. The car is still behind door A 1:3 times, and Monty has shown you that it is behind door C 2:3 times. So switch doors.

>>14720415
>sure but what does it have to do with the monty hall problem
In the Monty Hall problem, it's not clear whether Monty knowingly reveals a goat door or randomly reveals it. Also, read the context of the posts you're replying to. I didn't even bring it up.

>>14720424
>(3) Deliberately opening the door on a goat IS new information
Not about the door you chose. He would deliberately reveal a goat regardless of what you chose.

>>14720427
He knowingly reveals the goat. If he revealed the car, it would be over right then. There'd be no suspense, and that's bad for ratings. The execs would make him reveal the goat.

>>14720473
>If he revealed the car, it would be over right then. There'd be no suspense, and that's bad for ratings.
No more so in any game show where a contestant loses early on. You just move to the next one.

>>14720530
Whole premise is Monty always reveals what's behind one of the wrong doors after the initial pick, because the rule is that a contestant can change it and it must apply to every contestant on the show.
>>14720431
Monty is not making the same choice each time but responding to the contestant's choices. If the contestant picks correctly first-time, Monty can pick any other door, but if the contestant pick is wrong, then Monty is forced to pick one door and not the winning one. It's deliberate, but his choice is forced if the first pick is wrong. He might know the decision to switch is 50/50 for the contestant, but for the actual location of the prize it's still 1/3 of the time the initial pick regardless of what door was revealed, making the alternative 2/3. You can literally work this out yourself with objects under cups.

>>14720427
>it's not clear whether Monty knowingly reveals a goat door or randomly reveals it
wrong you don't know the problem then. make your own thread about a different problem and stop shitting this one up

>>14716052
It becomes trivial when you think of it from the perspective of two doors remaining closed, rather than one door opening. One of the doors only remains closed because you selected it. The door is not special compared to the other three, you just picked it.

It also becomes easier if you expand the number of doors.

Let’s say there are a million doors. You choose one door. All 999,998 doors open, revealing goats. Which is the better choice? Do you think you guessed the correct door out of a million different doors?

>>14720654
>Whole premise is Monty always reveals what's behind one of the wrong doors after the initial pick
Where is that premise stated? You'll notice the premise of my statements are always clearly stated.

>because the rule is that a contestant can change it and it must apply to every contestant on the show.
You can still change to the other goat.

>>14720665
>wrong you don't know the problem then
Please show me where in the problem it's stated.

>>14720654
None of this responds to what I said. Monty's deliberate reveal of a goat does not give you any information about your door, because he would do the same regardless of what your door contained.

>>14720843
> opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat
he doesn't open a [random] door that [turns out to] ha[ve] a goat, he opens a door that has a goat. you seem to be imagining that the goat is a result of choosing a door instead of a description of how the choice is made

Monty can't tell goats and cars apart. He opened the a door with a goat purely out of chance.

>>14720866
>he doesn't open a [random] door that [turns out to] ha[ve] a goat, he opens a door that has a goat.
I said that it's not clear whether Monty knowingly reveals a goat door or randomly reveals it. That statement agrees with what I said. Try again.

>>14720926
it's perfectly clear, go take an esl class and stop shitting up this thread

>>14720905
also false
> the host, who knows what's behind the doors

>>14720953
Then why are you having such trouble showing it?

>>14720960
i'm not

>>14720971
Then do it already.

This has got to be the same autist from the Einstein riddle thread and he's baiting us all
his arguments all boil down to:
>THE PROBLEM DOESNT SAY I CANT DO THIS

Let me rephrase the problem in a way that even retards like (OP) will be able to understand.
There are 3 doors. There is a car behind one, and a goat behind the other two. After you pick a door, the host always offers to let you open the other two doors instead of your initial choice. Should you open the other two doors, or the one door you picked?

Think about it this way.
If you switch, you will always get the opposite of what you picked. If you picked a car you will geta got, if you pick a goat you will get a car. Since you have a greater chance of picking the goat first, it is better to switch as you have a 2/3 chance of switching to a car

>>14721781
>Since you have a greater chance of picking the goat first
No, it's a 50% chance. If you played the game 30 million times you would get

>About 5 million instances where your first choice had a car and Monty opened the door with goat A
>About 5 million instances where your first choice had a car and Monty opened the door with goat B
>About 5 million instances where your first choice had goat A and Monty opened the door with the car
>About 5 million instances where your first choice had goat A and Monty opened the door with goat B
>About 5 million instances where your first choice had goat B and Monty opened the door with the car
>About 5 million instances where your first choice had goat B and Monty opened the door with goat A
If you eliminate the games where Monty opened the door with the car. Then you will be left with about 10 million instances where your first choice had a car and about 10 million instances where your first choice was one of the two goats.

>>14716099
Why does it make sense with lots of doors but not with only three?

>>14721171
you not reading isn't an argument

>>14721812
dude you're just an asshole who can't read, stfu and leave

>>14720320
Say there were 4 doors and 2 players (and 3 goats, 1 car).

>Player 1 picks a door.
>Player 2 picks a different door.
>Host (deliberately) reveals a goat behind an unchosen door.
>Offers Player 1 a chance to swap to the remaining door.
Should he?
>He then offers Player 2 a chance to swap also, either to the same door if Player 1 declined, or Player 1's original door if he swapped.
Should he swap?

>>14721868
Not reading what?

>>14720252
>New information can.
There is no new information. The host doesn't reveal anything about the context of your original choice. What's your education and profession? (Provide proof.)

>>14716052
>pick the goat in a two door scenario
>the host can either reveal the car or just say nothing and hope you don't notice
another retarded /sci/ thread.

>>14721781
>Since you have a greater chance of picking the goat first
That would only be true if Monty's chance of revealing a goat is greater than 2/3. His reveal can increase the probability you already have the car, since he must reveal a goat if you have the car but may not if you have a goat.

>>14722004
>His reveal can increase the probability you already have the car
Obviously wrong.

>>14721990
anything, apparently

>>14721867
Because people dont see that host always open goat door and never a car door.. Eliminating 1/3 of probability and making the other door have that probability as an extra

>>14721905
>>Offers Player 1 a chance to swap to the remaining door.
>Should he?
1/4 chance player 1 has the car and he shouldn't switch
1/4 chance the other player has the car and it doesn't matter whether he switches
1/2 chance no player has the car and he should switch
Monty reveals no information that changes this because he always reveals a goat regardless of what the players chose.

So he should switch since he gets the car half of the time he switches but 1/4 of the time he doesn't switch.

>>He then offers Player 2 a chance to swap also, either to the same door if Player 1 declined, or Player 1's original door if he swapped.
>Should he swap?
1/4 chance player 1 has the car and he should switch with player 1
1/4 chance he has the car and he shouldn't switch
1/2 chance no player has the car and he should switch to the remaining door
Monty reveals no information that changes this because he always reveals a goat regardless of what the players chose.

So he should switch to the remaining door since he gets the car half of the time he does that but 1/4 of the time he doesn't switch and 1/4 of the time he switches with the other player.

>>14721997
>There is no new information.
There is if Monty is not guaranteed to reveal a goat regardless of what you chose.

>>14722078
>There is if Monty is not guaranteed to reveal a goat regardless of what you chose.
That doesn't give you any information about your choice. Whether you choose a car or a goat, it will look exactly the same to you: a door is opened with a goat behind it.

>>14722017
Proof?

>>14722020
So anything is proof that the problem states Monty always reveals a goat? Sorry that's wrong. Try again.

There are 6 scenarios: a, b, c, d, e, f
a: you choose correctly and monty opens goat
b: you choose correctly and monty opens car
c: you choose wrong and monty opens goat
d: you choose wrong and monty opens car
e and f : same as c and d
Monty never opens car so it eliminates b d and f
3 scenarios are left
and you have 1/3 chance to pick the right scenario

>>14722086
His actions don't provide any new information about your choice. There is nothing to prove. Your IQ is 90 and you are not taking your antispychotics as instructed.

>>14721905
And if Monty randomly reveals a goat then it doesn't matter what choice either player makes, they always have a 1/3 chance of getting the car.

>>14722128
>His actions don't provide any new information about your choice.
They do if he is not guaranteed to reveal a goat. Then doing so increases the chance you have the car, because he must reveal a goat when you have the car. You lose.

>>14722141
>he must reveal a goat when you have the car
He must reveal a goat just the same when you don't have the car. You are mentally ill and coping.

>>14722146
and you have 1/3 to choose car

>>14722082
>That doesn't give you any information about your choice.
It absolutely does. Because then Monty has to reveal a goat when you chose the car but he may not reveal it when you chose a goat. Thus his reveal increases the chance you chose the car.

>Whether you choose a car or a goat, it will look exactly the same to you: a door is opened with a goat behind it.
Yes, the information is that it looks the same, even though it didn't have to. In other words, the information is that one of the things that could have happened if you chose a goat didn't occur. So it's less likely you chose a goat. Welcome to basic probability theory.

>>14722161
Everything looks the same regardless of which door you choose so no additional information is provided by him revealing a goat. You are mentally ill and coping.

>>14722164
See >>14722167
You are mentally ill and coping. You are positive proof that 105 IQs shouldn't be taught how to read and write, let alone taught to regurgitate middleschool probability theory terms.

>>14722167
so with 1000 doors and you have 1/1000 chance to pick right, monty opens 998 doors and you are saying you have 50/50 chance?

>>14722111
>b: you choose correctly and monty opens car
So Monty can open the door you chose? In that case there would be 9 scenarios. Try again.

>>14722179
Thats just a scenario which got eliminated since monty cannot open door with a car

>>14722146
>He must reveal a goat just the same when you don't have the car.
Not if he if is not guaranteed to reveal a goat. Read my post again. You're arguing against a strawman.

>>14722055
If you assume Player 1 plays optimally and switches, then there should be no advantage for Player 2 to switch since he will always be taking Player 1's original door, which has 1/4 chance of being a car, the same as the door he currently has.

>>14722188
>Not if he if is not guaranteed to reveal a goat
It doesn't matter if he's guaranteed or not. Only cases where he does reveal a goat are under consideration according to the problem statement. You are mentally ill and coping.

>>14722171
>See >>14722167
Already refuted. See >>14722164

>>14722177
No. Your incongruent and irrational post reveals that you are indeed mentally ill and coping. You have a 1/3 chance to win by sticking to your door when there's 3 doors, 1/1000 when there's 1000 doors, 1/1000000 if there's 1000000 doors etc. The host opening doors has no effect on this.

>>14722133
Good thing the question said he deliberately reveals a goat then.

>>14722167
>Everything looks the same regardless of which door you choose so no additional information is provided by him revealing a goat.
Incorrect, see >>14722164

>>14722197
The only thing you've refuted is the idea that your parents have human rights. Morally degenerate 90 IQ "people" are animals that shouldn't be given the privilege of reproduction.

>>14722182
You ignored scenarios in which you have the goat and Monty reveals it, since you claim Monty can reveal your door.

Also your conclusion is a non sequitur since you were supposed to determine the probability switching gets you the car, not "picking the right scenario" whatever that means. If Monty reveals doors randomly then he always reveals a goat when you choose correctly but only reveals a goat half the time you choose incorrectly.

>>14722100
no, you apparently can't read anything

>>14722239
3doors 6scenarios where 2 scenarios means the same
You eliminate scenarios that cannot take place
You are left with 3 scenarios
You will pick wrong scenario 2/3 out of the time so swapping will make it right 2/3 of the time

I hereby challenge mental patients who claim there is a plausible solution besides 2/3 to decribe a procedure that confirms their alternative take empirically.

This is probably one of the worst dogshit threads ive ever seen on /sci/. The either nigger tier IQ people in this thread or the ones larping as having nigger tier IQ should be IP banned from ever posting on this sub.

>>14722279
it's easy, all you have to do is imagine your own problem and solve that instead the monty hall problem

>>14722320
>all you have to do is imagine your own problem and solve that instead the monty hall problem
Whatever, I know you're being sarcastic but I'll actually allow for it. Let them invent "their own problem". I just want a concrete procedure to test their results. Spoiler: none will be provided because these nonhumans have no coherent thought process and nothing they say translates into reality.

>>14722189
No, if Player 1 chooses the remaining door then player 2 should take that door from player 1. Who has the door doesn't change anything.

>>14722195
>It doesn't matter if he's guaranteed or not.
It definitely does, as I've already shown. See >>14716324

>Only cases where he does reveal a goat are under consideration according to the problem statement.
Right. If Monty chooses randomly then in half of those cases you have the car and in half you don't. See >>14716840. Thanks for agreeing with me.

>>14722203
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting I'm right.

>>14722244
>no
Then show the proof already.

Monty also has choice 1/3 of the time
2/3 of the time Monty has no choice

>>14722440
>>14722444
Notice how you're a clinical cretin and will fail to take up this challenge: >>14722279

Your next post will be a deflection, cementing your status as subhuman.

>>14722274
Incorrect.

1. You chose the car, Monty reveals goat 1
2. You chose the car, Monty reveals goat 2
3. You chose goat 1, Monty reveals goat 2
4. You chose goat 1, Monty reveals the car
5. You chose goat 2, Monty reveals goat 1
6. You chose goat 2, Monty reveals the car

You have the car in half of the scenarios in which Monty randomly revealed a goat.

>>14722279
Just follow the problem as written and reveal a box randomly. Half of the time v the revealed box is a goat, you will have the car. It's no more difficult to replicate empirically than it is when Monty deliberately reveals a goat.

>>14722461
Notice how you completely failed to respond to my proof that you're wrong. LOL

>Notice how you're a clinical cretin and will fail to take up this challenge: >>14722279
>Your next post will be a deflection, cementing your status as subhuman.
Wrong. See >>14722599

>>14722599
>>14722606
Provide a concrete procedure, step by step. Protip: you won't.

1/3: You choose car -> Monty reveals goat -> switch= goat

1/3: You choose goat -> Monty reveals goat -> switch=car

1/3: You choose goat -> Monty reveals goat -> switch=car

So switching gets you the car 2/3 times.

>>14722445
read

>>14722582
no one is talking about your problem except for you. stop shitting up the thread

>>14722720
I already did, can you not read? It's the same procedure described in the problem step by step, and Monty reveals a random door. Half of the time he reveals a goat, you will have the car. What don't you understand?

>>14722827
Have you ever been diagnosed with a mental illness?

>>14722829
No. Please answer the question.

>>14722810
Read what? You obviously have no proof, otherwise you would be able to show it. This is your last (You) until you show the proof.

>>14722768
>1/3: You choose goat -> Monty reveals goat -> switch=car
What if Monty reveals a goat randomly?

>>14722312
>This is probably one of the worst threads ive ever seen on /sci/. The either nigger tier IQ people in this thread

The issue is some woman who claimed she had the highest ever IQ played this and said "it's better to switch because feeelings and what if there are 100 doors" (which none of that is in the original question).

She was ridiculed and then since we want "more womens in STEM" (even through we already have more than enough) , pro mathematicians gave up explaining to her and her followers why she's wrong (you don't win fights with women because of logic basically, and obviously she took IQ test as a child and was never retested) .
This really confused a lot of kids.

Plus now we have all sorts of nonsense pushed like relativity and "conditional" this and that, instead of real math and real mathematical logic. And all this statistics and probabilities often are not the reality.

What if you had 2 set of doors
Set A contains 3 doors (2goats 1car)
Set B contains 3 doors (2goats 1car)
You are asked to choose a door from Set A
Monty opens a goat door from Set B
Would you swap from Set A to Set B

>>14722814
>no one is talking about your problem except for you
LOL, the person I'm replying to was. Just stop posting.

>>14722857
What does this mean? He'll never reveal your door. He'll never reveal the car. He can only ever reveal exactly one door. It's not random.

>>14722913
>He'll never reveal the car.
What makes you think that?
They don't use glass doors so Monty doesn't know the content behind the doors either. He opens a random door and it just happened to be a goat then he offers to switch.

>>14722912
no one cares, stop shitting up the thread

>>14722844
read the monty hall problem

>>14722897
Yes, you have a 1/3 chance you have a car, and choosing one of the doors in set B gives you a 1/2 chance of getting a car.

>>14722857
>What if Monty reveals a goat randomly?
no one cares about your imaginary version of the problem

>>14722967
>no one cares
Then why did you claim the opposite?

>>14722913
>What does this mean?
It means he chose a random door and it happened to be a goat.

>He'll never reveal the car.
Proof?

>>14722970
I did, it doesn't say Monty deliberately reveals a goat. Try again.

>>14722974
Then no one cares about your imaginary version of the problem.

>>14722922
> the host, who knows what's behind the doors

>>14722983
> I did, it doesn't say Monty deliberately reveals a goat.
not being able to read english is not an argument, try again

>>14722975
>>14722995
go start your own thread about your not-monty-hall problem, stop shitting up this one

>>14723013
That information is not part of the game show.

>>14723023
that's a quote from the monty hall problem, feel free to start a new thread about the game show >>>/tv/

>>14722979
>>He'll never reveal the car.
>Proof?
Lets say that is the case.. that monty can open car door
3doors you pick one with 1/3 chance
Monty picks after you out of 2/3 where there are 16.67% chance to be a car
so you just lose if that happens, nothing special

If monty opens a goat he takes half of the chances from 2/3 and puts it in the last door which would be

2/3 /2 -> 1/3 and then +1/3 goes to the remaning door and you are left with 1/3

>>14723020
>your not-monty-hall problem
What's that?

>>14723057
reveals a goat randomly

>>14722415
Label the doors ABCD. P(x)=probability car is behind door x.
Player 1 picks A (P(A)=1/4)
Player 2 picks B (P(B)=1/4)
Host opens C (with full knowledge) and reveals a goat. (P(C)=0)
Player 1 knows P(B)+P(C)+P(D)=3/4, and therefore P(D)=3/4-1/4-0=1/2, twice his original probability, so he swaps.
Player 2 is then stuck with choosing between A and B, and he already knows P(A)=P(B)=1/4. There's no advantage/disadvantage to swapping.

>>14723040
>If monty opens a goat he takes half of the chances from 2/3 and puts it in the last door which would be
>2/3 /2 -> 1/3 and then +1/3 goes to the remaning door and you are left with 1/3
This is gibberish. The chance of you choosing a car is the same as you choosing a goat and then Monty choosing a goat (1/3). So switching gets you the car half the time Monty reveals a goat.

>>14723072
How is that different from the problem?

>>14723314
Your initial chance is 1/3
Monty opens door
Your initial chance rises to 1/2 ?

Plot twist: Before the show Monty is only told where one of the goats is.
If you pick a different door, he opens that one in full knowledge.
But if you pick the door he knows, he has to guess between the other two.

He opens the door and reveals a goat, do you switch?

>>14723125
>P(x)=probability car is behind door x.
This is vague. The probability at what point? I'll assume you mean before Monty reveals a goat.

>Host opens C (with full knowledge) and reveals a goat. (P(C)=0)
P(C) = 1/4
P(C|Monty reveals C is a goat) = 0

>Player 1 knows P(B)+P(C)+P(D)=3/4, and therefore P(D)=3/4-1/4-0=1/2
P(D) = 1/4
P(D|Monty didn't choose D) = (1/4)(1)/((1/4)(1)+(3/4)(1/3)) = 1/2

>Player 2 is then stuck with choosing between A and B
Why? You said he could switch with player 1. So he takes D.

>>14723341
Bigger plot twist: Everything you said happens but Monty lies to you and says theres a goat behind one of the other two doors he isnt told about. After one of the goats is revealed he confesses that he lied. Do you switch then?

>>14723348
>You said he could switch with player 1.
No, I said he could take the door Player 1 originally picked, if Player 1 chose to swap.

>>14723318
we've been over this already
> opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat
the words describe how a door is chosen
they don't describe the result of choosing a door randomly

>>14723326
Yes. Because if you had chosen a goat, Monty could have revealed the car. Since he didn't, that reduces the chance you have a goat and increases the chance you have the car.

>>14723341
obv you switch, the odds isn't dependent on Montys knowing thru some mysterious mechanism, it's dependent on that the doors you didn't chose accounts for 66% and now he's shown which one of them it isn't leaving the remaining unchosen door a 66% chance.

>>14723341
1/3 chance you chose the car and Monty reveals a goat
1/6 chance you chose Monty's goat and he revealed a goat
1/3 chance you chose the other goat and he revealed his goat

So there's a (1/3)/(5/6) = 2/5 chance you have the car and a 3/5 chance switching will get you the car. You should switch.

>>14723358
Whatever, that door has a 1/4 chance of containing the car regardless of Player 1 switching. Same as Player 2's door.

>>14723360
>> opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat
>the words describe how a door is chosen
No they don't, they describe the result of the choice. Learn how to read.

The producers decide to have a little fun. They set up a 100 person telephone game with the starting phrase is "The correct door is the first one" and the last person gives the phrase to you. The telephone game has a 40% chance of giving you the correct door, 30% chance for each of the goat doors since the phrase got scrambled in those scenarios. You dont know if the door they told you is correct, but you do know it was passed through a 100 person telephone game so it could be wrong, but not the chances it's wrong.

The game begins and much to your surprise 4 possible choices are revealed when you were going in believing there were 3. You believe the phone group so you choose their door, but the remainder of the 3 non surprise doors are revealed to be goats, while door number 4 is not. Do you switch to door 4?

>>14723364
Wrong. See >>14723410

>>14723363
But hmm, you have also 2 goats to choose from initially
Monty has that 16,67% chance because you have the initial choice and Monty has the second choice
I just dont see how that 1/6 can be transfered back into that funktion you already locked

But i get what you are saying here and there is not a really good definition of random since it would not be random anymore if its defined
like if its D1->D2->D3 Based on your pick ( what monty opens )
or if its D1->D3->D2
Or based on a coinflip which method of those gets used
But also leaving loopholes etc.

Actually i think you are right since the rotation of "randomness" in this case can either go clockwise or counterclowise which would make it 50/50

But then again there are 2 goats.. :D
You would need to build all the possible scenarios out of that system and end up either with
Distribution of those scenarios (average)
or still
Randomly pick 1 out of those scenarios

>Yes/No, 3Doors, 1Monty, Rotatio-ACK*

>>14723423
not an argument, thanks for finally admitting you were wrong though kek

>>14723465
Also when counting up all the possible scenarios you need to include both ways of monty opening doors ( 1 door vs all the remaining doors ) etc. since its not defined even in the game

>gl

>I don't understand statistical analysis - the thread
The chance of picking a car on your first guess is 1/3
Given the chance to change your reward from one to the other means that 2/3 of the time you'll guess incorrectly, and win a car when changing your reward, and 1/3 of the time you'll guess correctly, and get a goat when changing your reward.

That's all there is to it, retards.

>>14723505
>retards
>plural
It's just one guy.

>>14723528
I refuse to believe one guy can be that autistic, it must be a multiplicity of autists, a multitude of retards, a plurality of morons.

>>14723544
Nope. It's a solitude of stupidity.

The dude only talked about if he has initial 1/6 chance of not even getting to make a choice
Nothing big

>>14723585
a singularity, then

>>14716052
OP FUCK EVERYONE HERE, THEY ARE A BUNCH OF FAGGOTS WHO CAN'T EXPLAIN THE INTUITION.
CONSIDER THIS
100 DOORS. 1 HAS THE CAR, 99 THE GOATS.
YOU PICK ONE, THE PRESENTER OPENS 98 GOATS AND ASKS YOU IF YOU WANT TO SWAP TO THE REMAINING DOOR. WHAT DO YOU DO?

>>14723465
>Monty has that 16,67% chance
Of what? 1/6 is the chance of you choosing a goat and Monty choosing a goat. Monty's chance of choosing a goat after you chose a goat is 1/2. Both choices are random. Your posts are barely decipherable. Learn probability theory.

>>14723486
>not an argument
Yeah it is.

>>14723505
>Given the chance to change your reward from one to the other means that 2/3 of the time you'll guess incorrectly
No. If Monty reveals a goat randomly then only half the time switching will get you the car. Retard.

>>14723724
Yes 16,67% + 33,33% = 50% which monty has
So you have 16,67% chance to lose before you get to choose
>But then i have 50/50
But also 16,67% failure chance to reach 50/50

I dont really understand why are you picking on me when im only one coping with you

>Learn probability theory
mm

>>14723733
nope lol thanks for trying tho

>>14723734
>If Monty reveals a goat randomly
no one cares about this shit, go home

>>14723720
>WHAT DO YOU DO?
It depends on the chance of Monty revealing 98 goat doors. If Monty always reveals only goats then you should switch since you get the car 98/99 times. If Monty randomly chose the doors to reveal and just happened to miss the car then it doesn't matter whether you switch or stay.

Assume an unformatted flat prior for Monty's probability of revealing n-2 goats after you choose a goat. Then the average probability you have the car is ln(n)/(n-1). Since this is always less than 1/2, you works always switch no matter how many doors there are.

>>14723779
Then neither is this:

>> opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat
>the words describe how a door is chosen
>they don't describe the result of choosing a door randomly

You lose.

>>14723763
>Yes 16,67% + 33,33%
Why are you adding these probabilities? You're just adding numbers with no reasoning.

>So you have 16,67% chance to lose before you get to choose
Gibberish. Stop posting.

>>14723792
I don't care about your opinion. The more triggered you get, the more I'll post.

If I shoot Monty I can open all doors and take the car. You can't prove me wrong
The problem doesn't say anything about not using guns

This is literally what this thread is all about

>>14723815
how about you go home instead kek

>>14723804
thanks for finally admitting you can't read, surprised you gave up after 300 posts of not giving up

>>14723831
Not an argument, try again.

>>14723821
>Yes sir you can keep the car I only want the goat
>he can trim my lawn, show me a car that can you that and I'll switch

>>14723821
I agree, the assumption that Monty only reveals goats is made up.

>>14723830
How about you prove Monty can only reveal goats?

>>14723883
>>14723897
how about you go home and learn english lol

>>14724035
What English says that Monty can only reveal goats?

>>14724051
the one you quoted when you admitted you couldn't read, twice. ty again very kind

>>14724084
>the one you quoted when you admitted you couldn't read, twice.
I never said that, and nothing I've quoted says Monty can only reveal goats. Can you be more specific?

>>14723734
>If Monty reveals a goat randomly
That could only happen if you didn't choose a goat. If you chose a goat, the other would be revealed.

>>14724287
No, if you chose a goat, then Monty only has a 1/2 chance of revealing the other goat if he chose to reveal a random door. Doing so increases the chance you have the car.

>>14724422
>if he chose to reveal a random door.
the door revealed when you choose a goat is never random

>>14725108
>the door revealed when you choose a goat is never random
Proof?

>>14725118
Yes

>>14725129
Where?

>>14725182
in the problem's formulation