[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 10 KB, 719x757, midwit test.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15259237 No.15259237 [Reply] [Original]

Basic math.

>> No.15259241
File: 303 KB, 720x1480, Screenshot_20230309-051133_Chrome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15259241

>>15259237
No, its 50/50 in that I either choose top or bottom. I choose top because I aint no a catcher.
B^l

>> No.15259482

>>15259237
do it experimentally

>> No.15259513

>>15259482
I did it on Python when I used to be stupid. Then I learned that these problems are always true. Changing doors does give you better results.

>> No.15259519

Is this a monty hall thread?

instead of 3 doors, try doing it with 100 doors.
The answer becomes more intuitive. Here:

>100 doors to choose from
>pick 1 door at random
>Monty opens 98 OTHER doors all with goats behind them
>now there only are 2 doors left, your original door and the door Monty didn't open
Do you swap or stay with your 1st choice?

>> No.15259535

>>15259519
monty opening 98 doors doesnt tell you anything. you still have a 1/2 chance no matter which you originally chose

>> No.15259540
File: 5 KB, 469x510, probs.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15259540

>>15259237
About as insightful as this

>> No.15259541

>>15259519
>I'm going to arbitrarily decide how the game works.

t.brainlet

>> No.15259586
File: 36 KB, 1153x301, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15259586

seems like it's 50/50 either way

>> No.15259599

>>15259237

its not that difficult. Since monty never reveals the prize switching is like getting to choose two doors from the start instead of one. If the prize is behind either you win.

>> No.15259607

>>15259586
I see your mistake: you count the instances where you initially choose the car double because Monty has two doors to choose from. But he just opens one at random and it influences nothing.

>> No.15259654

>>15259586
>>15259607
In fact it's easy to see in your own table frin those little columns of green that you're selecting too many cars. You got three options but you choose four. You essentially go "car, same car again, goat 1, goat 2".

>> No.15259665

>>15259654
>frin
from, of course

>> No.15259698
File: 43 KB, 2028x3148, midwit test100.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15259698

>>15259519
>try doing it with 100 doors
ok, but it seems to be turtles all the way down.

>> No.15259720

>>15259535
But your original was 1% chance. That's the part that some people don't get. It's not true that your current choice has 50% chance; it has 1% chance of being kept because you got it right, and 99% chance of being kept because you got it wrong. Why was the other door kept? In 99% cases because it's hiding the prize, and in 1% cases because the dude had to randomly select an empty door. If you change doors it's 99% chance of prize.

>> No.15259745

>>15259698
see this >>15259720

The final choice isn't an even 50/50 chance.
It's more like a 1/100 vs 99/100 chance.

>> No.15259751

People are trolling right? It was understandable to get the Monty Hall problem wrong when we were in middle school, but there is no way to have an IQ above 100 and still think the answer 1/2

>> No.15259752

>>15259541
whats the difference between opening 1 door of 2 vs 98 doors of 99?

>> No.15259820

>>15259237
Evrn when its 1/3 of chance its still 50:50

>> No.15259831

>>15259752
The assumption is that 98 doors are opened just because all but 2 are opened in the original. You can also argue that you pick 1 door and 1 door is revealed, giving you 97 choices to switch to.

>> No.15259834

>>15259535
You are only good to feed stray dogs with your corpse.

>> No.15259837

>>15259586
This stupid moron does excel shit for the FMI.

>> No.15259843

>>15259751
>have a small window in the laundry room
>it has iron bars protecting it
>mom closes the window
>"it's so nobody can break in during the night"
>I explain that we would hear the crowbar, chisel, and mallet hitting the cinderblock wall for about 10 minutes
>(once 15 years ago we had a burglary like that while we were out of the city)
>she says "remember the time when they already did it, it can happen" and walks away triumphantly
She just can't understand how both situations are different and also believes the glass being smashed would wake us up, but the demolition job wouldn't. Many people can only think on a surface level based on their senses and memories of their senses, they don't actually reason stuff. These people are a majority and they're everywhere, of course there's plenty of them on /sci/ too.

>> No.15259854

>>15259843
Which is exactly why people think it's 2/3 chance to open 1 of 2 available doors.

>> No.15259879

>>15259831
No, because the final choice is not "pick a door" but "switch to the one remaining door". You don't get to pick again from a new set of doors. Monty indicates the one door and asks you if you'd prefer that one.

>> No.15259882

>>15259854
I'm gonna hand you a weighted coin. It's balanced so that it will land heads about 2/3 of the time. What are the odds of getting either heads or tails?

>> No.15259884

>>15259882
doors aren't coins

>> No.15259900

>>15259882
50/50
It will still either be heads or tales

>> No.15259929

>>15259882
The door isn't weighted. One has a prize and one has no prize. 50/50.

>> No.15259939

>>15259929
Weirdly enough though you'll be wrong about 2/3 of the time

>> No.15259954

>>15259939
Nope. Because choosing one of the 2 doors is independent of the door that was removed.

>> No.15259956

>>15259954
Sure, Anon. I'd love to play poker with you.

>> No.15259960

>>15259956
I would love to flip some coins with you. You win if your choice occurs 2/3rds of the time.

>> No.15259961

>>15259960
Sure, if I can use the coin descibed in >>15259882

>> No.15259963

>>15259961
Nope. No tricks, just a normal coin like we have two normal random doors.

>> No.15259967

>>15259963
>No tricks
So not like Monty Hall then

>> No.15260031

>>15259963
But they're not random, are they? The first door is the door you'd chosen before - which, as you know, was 1/3 likely to be the car door, having been chosen from among three identical doors. The remaining door is the one that wasn't opened by Monty, which, in the case that we didn't randomly pick the car on our first try, NECESSARILY means it contains the car.

>> No.15260154

>>15259879
Only because there's no other doors to pick from. I see no reason why more than 1 door would be opened.

>> No.15260157

>>15259929
One has a prize and the other one doesn't, but the way in which you picked the door was by drawing a paper from a box. In that box 30 papers had the wrong door and one paper had the right door written on it. Then the guy discards a door without prize, and two are left. If you think this is 50/50 you're pretty dumb.

>> No.15260172

>>15260157
Gambler's fallacy. The lack of a prize behind the discarded doors has no bearing on the prizes of the doors you're actually picking from. One has a prize and one doesn't. 50% chance that a door you pick has a prize.

>> No.15260242

>>15259854
Winning the lottery is 50/50 you either win or you don't.

>> No.15260244

>>15260242
True.

>> No.15260265

>>15260242

>> No.15260321
File: 255 KB, 800x638, Monty Hall.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15260321

>> No.15260324

>>15260321
The people who don't get it are too dumb to understand how drawing the events works, so this pic is meaningless to them. And if they're just pretended to be retarded, joke's on them because that makes them retarded for real.

>> No.15260326

>>15260324
I get a deep spiritual pleasure from condescending explanations, it's why I'm a tutor for college students.

>> No.15260416

>>15260321
what you fools forget is that no matter what there is always only the losing door and the winning door. two outcomes, 50/50

>> No.15260854
File: 4 KB, 478x211, monty.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15260854

>>15259237
switch

>> No.15260859

>>15259237
The only way you lose from switching is if you picked the right door on your first guess. The odds of that are 1/3. Now kill yourself.

>> No.15260861

>>15260242
Winning the lottery is 1/50000000 you either win or you don't.

>> No.15260904

THE 1/3 KEKS:

>catholic
>believe in motion
>believe in exchange
>believe in reality
>damned

THE 1/2 CHADS:

>protestant/gnostic
>don't believe in motion
>don't believe in exchange
>don't believe in reality
>elect

>> No.15261078

>>15260154
Because otherwise you end up with more than one door to pick from. And in the original you are left with only one door. One single choice. Stay or switch. You can say "ah yes but couldn't we model it like this instead?" but then you're just doing random bullshit that tells you very little.

Either way, the fact that your pick is excluded from being able to be opened by Monty still means that switching is always better, although the advantage might be tiny if you do it your way.

>> No.15261084

>>15260172
>The lack of a prize behind the discarded doors has no bearing on the prizes of the doors you're actually picking from.
It does, actually, because the discarded door is dependent on your first pick. This is actually the gambler's fallacy in reverse lol. It's like I've got four sixes in Yahtzee and I'm asking for the odds that I'll get five sixes, and you say "well the odds of getting five sixes in a row are (1/6)^5". You're ignoring what's already on the table.

>> No.15261179

>>15260172
Please activate your brain before you participate.
Monty Hall is defined a certain way. Actually read the definition. The host of the show knows which doors contains goats and which the car, and he will never pick the door with the car.
If you have an ounce of a mathematical bone, that "never" is exceedingly suspect. A "never" almost never implies nothing significant. I.e. a "never" almost always implies something very significant (and needless to say, it makes a difference).

>> No.15261207

>>15259237
addition of new revealing information changes the probability distribution.
I am sure same thing is true on a quantum level,

>> No.15261292

It's good to have a thread like this once in a while. A reminder that people can just be incredibly confidently wrong.

>> No.15261573

>>15259720
I understand now. Thank you.

>> No.15261658

>>15261292
It's like that guy who said
>They told me Elon Musk was a genius when it came to cars, and I said, fair enough, I don't know anything about cars
>Then they told me Elon Musk was a genius when it came to rockets, and I said, fair enough, I don't know anything about rockets
>Now they're telling me Elon Musk is a genius when it comes to programming, but I happen to know a lot about programming.
>So they were probably wrong about those other times too.

>> No.15261725

>>15261292
Op here, I can completely rationalize the point of view that it's 33.3/66.7 as the game is rigged to defy normal probability so that the door will not be revealed.
But the problem for me is that normal observable reality it's two doors, 50/50. It's best to just treat it as such.

>> No.15261738

>>15261725
>so that the door
So that the winning door

>> No.15261740
File: 411 KB, 680x680, a26[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15261740

>>15261725
>It's best to just not do maths
>Just go with your gut

>> No.15261754

>>15261725
When you pick a door, you have a 1/3 chance of getting a car. When a goat door is opened, your door remains 1/3 because the choice already happened. And opening a goat door does not change that since you already knew one of them was a goat. However since probability must add up to 1, the remaining door, now has 2/3 chance of being a car.

>> No.15261787

>>15261754
>And opening a goat door does not change that since you already knew one of them was a goat.
The fact that there will always be a goat door open implies that of the remaining two doors there is a winning door and goat door. That does factor into probability.
>>15261740
Basic math and instinct will get you further in basic day to day needs, teach this problem reinforces the midwit mindset of overthinking what is easily observable.

>> No.15261797

>>15261787
>teach this problem reinforces the midwit mindset of overthinking what is easily observable.
Except in this case your instinct is literally wrong. You easily observed the wrong outcome, to your own detriment. That's why we fucking have maths. So we don't have to depend on our instincts in cases where it might be wrong and make informed decisions instead.

>> No.15261799

>>15261797
>Except in this case your instinct is literally wrong
Only 2/3 of the time

>> No.15261818

>>15259519
So the odds were initially 1/100 but got deduced down to 1/2, this just means the odds are in your favor. The choice of door is irrelevant as you don't stand to lose anything by your choice and there is not enough evidence to better your odds.

>> No.15261841

>>15259939
Lol, quality quip. Shame it's wasted on troglodytes who are too stupid to understand Monty Hall.

>> No.15261842

>>15261818
Funnily enough, deciding randomly between staying or switching will lead to roughly 50-50 odds. But of course you can improve those odds by a lot if you pay attention to whether staying or switching ends up being the winning choice a lot of the time.

>> No.15261843

>>15260031
Of course the morons will never respond to posts like this one which explains the problem in full

>> No.15261861

>>15261843
>Of couse people will ignore my worthless, low IQ post
Seethe about it.

>> No.15261867

>>15261861
I think we've both figured out that making worthless, low IQ posts is actually a great way to get people to respond to you, which is why I'm responding to you right now.

>> No.15261881

>>15261867
Imagine admitting to taking the bait as some way to make yourself look smarter, that just makes you look less rational than an fool.

>> No.15261894

>>15261861
Lol, I wasn't quoting my own post you mongoloid. I feel really bad for the 20% of you that aren't trolling. Everyone on both sides is laughing at how retarded you are.

>> No.15261951

>>15261894
The ones trolling are the ones you should feel bad for. The ones who are dumb are just people who didn't have the chances to develop a good mind, they are not to blame for being dumb. The ones trolling are people who didn't have the circumstances to develop a good character; they are also victims in a way, but their disability is more depraved because it precludes them from using their whole potential. It's like being poor vs. being poor because you're addicted to cocaine; only one of those has dignity.

>> No.15261987

>>15259745
One goat
Two doors
------------------ ÷
0.5

>> No.15261994

>>15259698
The liberal statistician is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a liar, a manipulator, a bad mathematician, a gullible amateur played by the elites, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But remind him there are still only 2 doors and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: 'I've been found out."

>> No.15262089

>>15260031
I can't remember if in the original probelm it is stated anywhere that the door with the car cannot be removed in the removal process after the first choice, but if that is the case then yes this is the right solution. However if the door with the car can be removed after stage 1 then it's not the case.