Do you switch?

[Anonymous No.10612093]

[Anonymous No.10612095]

No, I already know where the goat is.

[Anonymous No.10612096]

>>10612095
Go to bed, Ahmed.

[Anonymous No.10612126]

>>10612093
yes

[Anonymous No.10612133]

>>10612126
Grouping the two doors you did not select together is a fallacy. They are not collectively 2/3rds of the equation, they are always 1/3rd each. When one is removed, the value of the removed door is divided equally between the two remaining doors.

[Anonymous No.10612136]

>>10612133
>seething

[Anonymous No.10612141]

>>10612133
>Grouping the two doors you did not select together is a fallacy
nope, Monty didn't have the option of opening the door you selected.

[Anonymous No.10612145]

Just use bayes theorem

[Anonymous No.10612146]

>>10612141
That has no relevance at all. He's always going to open a losing door no matter which door you picked. You learn absolutely nothing when he opens the door.

[Anonymous No.10612156]

>>10612146
>You learn absolutely nothing
I learn that the car wasn't behind the opened goat door. Duh.

[Anonymous No.10612158]

>>10612156
You already knew that there would be a goat behind the door monty chooses.

[Anonymous No.10612161]

>>10612158
yes, that's what I learned. Duh

[Anonymous No.10612170]

>>10612145
>Just use bayes theorem
All reputable statisticians reject Bayes "theorem".

[Anonymous No.10612264]

I'm a contrarian : the post

[Anonymous No.10612269]

>>10612170
It's just a simple consequences of the definition of conditional probability. And the generalization of conditional probability is very useful in statistics, including the generalized form of bayes' formula.

[Anonymous No.10612323]

>>10612158
Yeah but you didn't know which of the two doors he would choose.

[Anonymous No.10612332]

>>10612323
While you are mulling over your retarded goat car conundrum (((monty hall))) is directing (((crew members))) to move the car and goat around behind the doors hth.

[Anonymous No.10612789]

So basically abstract statistic dick inflections say that you always have to switch because your chances go up from 33% to 50% after the door with the goat has been revealed but in reality if you were to run the experiment it wouldn't actually make any difference because opening one of the doors with the goat doesn't influence in which door the car will be.

[Anonymous No.10612791]

>>10612170
>Literally just intersecting sets
Nice bait

[Anonymous No.10612792]

>>10612789
>in reality if you were to run the experiment it wouldn't actually make any difference because opening one of the doors with the goat doesn't influence in which door the car will be.

>t. hasn't actually run a simulation

[Anonymous No.10612826]

>>10612789
>o up from 33% to 50%
gr8 b8 m8

[Anonymous No.10612832]

>>10612133
>>10612789
Shame. I'd expect this from /v/ but /sci/? You should know better.

[Anonymous No.10612843]

>>10612170
>reputable statisticians reject things that work in practice with a high degree of accuracy
That doesn't make any sense

[Anonymous No.10612875]

>>10612792
/g/ here. Imagine I'm going to code a simulation. How do I pick which door monty opens? Assume the player originally picked the car. There are two goats. Do I need to pick randomly or can I just pick door 1 every time?

[Anonymous No.10612882]

>>10612875
randomly

[Anonymous No.10612885]

>>10612875
You can always select door 1 and open the lowest one with a goat that's not selected (so 2 or 3) as long as the car is random. Then you can switch or not.

[Anonymous No.10612891]

>>10612882
>>10612885
You can implement both ways and compare the results :^)

[Anonymous No.10613135]

>>10612093
The maths say yes if you desire the car. But why is the care more valuable than a goat? To answer that we need sociology. Sociology is beyond /sci/'s grasp.

[Anonymous No.10613649]

>>10612093
Simulate and find out.

[Anonymous No.10613657]

>>10612093
Imagine you had a billion doors, and behind one of them was a jeep while the rest were goats. You pick door 1 while the show host opens every door except for door 1 and door 28349855, do you switch?

[Anonymous No.10613794]

>>10612093
For anyone not understanding why switching increases your chances, just imagine 100 doors (1 win 99 losers) instead of three:
Moderator asks you to pick one out of 100 doors.
You randomly choose one.
Moderator opens up 97 doos of the 99 not chosen doors, all of them losers.
Only 3 doors remain, one being the winner.
Do you switch?

[Anonymous No.10613914]

>>10613794
Yes, because if I switch my chances goes from 1% to 33%

Science

[Anonymous No.10614009]

>>10612093
Many of the solutions posted here involve probability or arithmetic. However, it is possible to solve this using only pure logic / set theory.

[Anonymous No.10614084]

Has anyone watched all the episodes and figured out the times that switching would have been better vs staying?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1BSkquWkDo

[Anonymous No.10614091]

>>10614084
Never mind he doesn't do it that way on the show. Just offers them money for their door.

[Anonymous No.10614247]

>>10612095

[Anonymous No.10615542]

>>10612095
based multicultural strength-adder

[Anonymous No.10615555]

>>10612170
how are you posting from 1970

[Anonymous No.10615908]

I fucking hate this problem

[Anonymous No.10615962]

>>10612789
nearly fell for this

[Anonymous No.10616013]

To anyone confused about this, instead of 3 doors, imagine the same problem with 100 doors.

[Anonymous No.10616085]

>>10612095
Literally 3000 IQ

[Anonymous No.10616092]

is this a meme

[Anonymous No.10616095]

>>10616092
uhh should have tagged this post >>10616013

[Anonymous No.10616102]

>>10612133
based retard

[Anonymous No.10616954]

>>10612093
This bait is much more successful on /v/ where people are actually retarded enough to dispute the solutions to solved problems.