/sci/ - Science & Math

This reasoning is not very easy to understand unless you already grasp the problem correctly. Changing the number from 3 to 100 seems unjustified. What was key for me was the fact that the guy is always able to show you a goat no matter which door you pick. So the goat-showing changes nothing. Then it's clear that the choice is first-picked door OR all other doors.

>>15408377
>the goat-showing changes nothing
you are stupid. you are literally told 98 out of the 99 doors you didn't pick are now false.

he could not control you at the 1st pick so you confirmed you have 1/100 to win on what you got and he has 99/100 to win on what remains and offered for a swap.

>>15408389
>>15408377
> the guy is always able to show you a goat
by the way, if you implied "he can cheat and move the goats around" then it's not the same problem.
the problem assumes honesty on that.

>>15408337
Here's the interesting part
We dont actually know if the host would open 98 doors or 1 door.

>>15408401
is that a variation? it doesn't change too much. even if he opens 1 goat, it's higher probability to swap.

>>15408337
>easy way to grasp
you are choosing between two groups

>>15408409
correct.
1% vs 1.01020408163265%

>>15408412
yes, purely mathematically. thing is people are often stuck to the "but it's still 1/3rd each" mentality so the 100-door problem makes it too ridiculously obvious to miss that it's misconception to think it doesn't actually stay 1/3rd after swapping.

There's a 1/3 chance you initially pick the good door. The other 2/3 times the guy has to open the other bad door, meaning if you switch you win. Therefore the odds of winning are 2/3 if u switch. How do you not get this?

>>15408419
see >>15408418

>>15408419
yknow, I was initially very confused by this problem, but now I don't even remember why.

>>15408409
>is that a variation?
Yes, and thats the reason why the host is 50/50 on opening a goat door or a car door, or just rest of the goat doors

>>15408401
>>15408409
what about the variation, that he opens one goat out of the 99, but you also have to pick 1 or stay on the same (instead of being able to switch to the whole other 98).

>>15408519
Well the game is that host opens the rest of the goats but also just 1 door
If you expand it to 100 doors you are not sure if the host opens 98 doors or just 1

>>15408519
>>15408417

fuck off with this psi op. it's 1 in 3. each choice is 1 in 3. even with a thousand doors.

I tried to explain this to my wife but she didn't understand it.

>>15408337
What is the purpose of this thread? No one asked. And this is one of the best known intuitive explanations of the Monty Hall problem.

>>15408538
The point is with three doors, opening one door and opening all but one remaining door are identical. We don't have to guess at the hypothetical rules of an extrapolated game because we're setting it up specifically to demonstrate what happens when the host opens all but one remaining door.

>>15408741
Heres couple of scenarios with host opening first:
Scenario A
There is 2 doors and you choose 1 and host lets you switch (2 door monty, retarded i know)
Scenario B (100 door monty)
There is 99 doors and you choose 1 and host lets you switch
Scenario C (100 door monty)
There is 2 doors and you choose .. oh wait its the scenario A again

If its predetermined that host will open 1 goat door after you pick, how would it be any different if the host pre opens a goat door and then you pick (and switch)

>>15408412
probabilities don't remain constant when new information is revealed, smoothie

>>15408913
lrn2read idiot
door #2 changes

CGG
GCG
GGC
assume without loss of generality that you pick door #1, and a goat is removed
CG
GC
GC
it's that simple

>>15409064
that's only a change in language type. now make your CGGs into CGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG...(100 letters), and you'll see it's even more intuitive.

>>15408760
Because he can't open the door you picked. Duh.