[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

# /sci/ - Science & Math

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 55 KB, 1200x667, 1200px-Monty_open_door.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The goat either IS or ISN'T behind the door. If you take out the choosing door part, it's clearly 50% chance. You can't refute this.

If you flip a coin, it's heads or tails.
If you pick a card it's red or blue.

 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 12:33:17 2017 No.9379410 suppose the guy offered u 100 doors u pick one and he opens 98.do u switch?
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 12:39:23 2017 No.9379425 >>9379410Absolutely. The probability when you picked the first door was 1/100 and the probability when you pick the second door regardless of whether or not you were actually correct in your initial guess is 1/2. Is this not obvious?
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 12:41:18 2017 No.9379431 >>9379425The non autistic answer is that it doesjt matter because you already have one of the last two doors selected. Your odds are the same.
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 12:43:10 2017 No.9379438 >>9379431it's non autistic and also wrong
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 12:45:58 2017 No.9379441 >>9379407when you first pick a door, the chance of the car being behind the other two doors combined is 66%. When the host reveals the goat behind of those two doors, the chance of there being a car in the one that's left is still 66%.
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 12:46:18 2017 No.9379442 >>9379431Look at it this way, if you stick with your original door you have 99/100 chance of being wrong because there were 100 doors when you selected. If you swap you have a 1/2 chance of being wrong because you are literally told one of these two doors still has the prize.
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 12:47:54 2017 No.9379446 >>9379442No, the other doors have been opened, so if you stick with your original choice, you know the goat is behind 1 of 2 of those doors, so your odds are 1 in 2
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 12:48:39 2017 No.9379448 >>9379431This is actually testably false. Our intuitions about probabilities are just bad.
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 12:51:36 2017 No.9379453 >>9379407what makes this not the intuitive answer is the fact that it could be either door
 >> 50/50 man Tue Dec 19 12:53:07 2017 No.9379459 >>9379431I'm a brainlet myself but you 50/50 fags take that shit to a whole new level.It's like you are a child. You see 2 doors, it must be 50/50.Of course it is a 50/50 chance if you take out all the stipulations and variables relating to the door. But that is missing the point on purpose
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 12:54:12 2017 No.9379462 File: 50 KB, 374x382, monty.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 13:00:28 2017 No.9379491 >>9379459What are you even saying? I'm confused as to which side you're arguing for because you're not doing a good job at explaining youself
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 13:03:05 2017 No.9379498 >>9379491then you can't read, his post is completely clear.
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 13:07:07 2017 No.9379512 i'm baffled at how /sci/ will still argue about a problem with a solution so easy to verify with a computer and any programming language. i get it that the problem confused even mathematicians when it was published because it's very non intuitive, but reading some of the replies here i can't believe i'm on the science board
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 13:11:39 2017 No.9379525 >>9379512your post is literally "im so smart look at me ooohhh" even worse than the idiots here desu
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 13:13:28 2017 No.9379529 >>9379525if you think understanding this problem is being smart, that says more about you than about me
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 13:17:35 2017 No.9379540 >>9379529>hurrr hurrrr don't call me out you're dumbyou're a stuck up faggot, and your posts are useless trash which contribute to nothing.
 >> Not actually a 50/50 man Tue Dec 19 13:18:52 2017 No.9379546 >>9379491I was baiting. I just wanted to see the retarded 50/50 man explanations. They are usually the quality of my original post
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 13:26:03 2017 No.9379560 >>9379407There are three doors. The game master will shoot you in the head until you are dead and then open a door at random. If there is no goat behind that door he will open another door at random to get that goat. He then proceeds to murder that goat and grill its meat for dinner.What is the probability of your death?
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 13:27:16 2017 No.9379565 >>937956050/50 either it happens or it doesn't
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 13:27:47 2017 No.9379568 >>9379446the door that you did choose could have been one of the 98 doors opened, there is no difference between the rest and the one you pick. Probability (1/100), but if you choose the other, the chance of it be the right is the the one you pick in a hundred less de 98 eliminated (1/100-98)=1/2
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 13:32:11 2017 No.9379586 >>9379431 /\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ 1/100 99/100 / \ / \ / \ R W /\ /\ / \ / \ / \ / \ 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 / \ / \ / \ / \ R W R W1/200 1/200 99/200 99/200
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 13:37:25 2017 No.9379599 >>9379586.../\.../ \.../ \../\ /\../\ /\./ \ / \.FAG./ \ / \./\ /\ /\./\ /\ /\50/50/ \ /\ / \/ \ /\ / \/ \ /\ / \. ||. ||
 >> Not actually a 50/50 man Tue Dec 19 13:37:26 2017 No.9379600 >>9379512They can't perceive the problem in their head, even though it has been proven to be 2/3.Then they use mental gymnastics to fool themselves that they are actually the ones who are right
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 13:39:19 2017 No.9379609 >>9379600The anon you're replying to isn't agreeing with you, it has been proven to be 1/2.
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 13:42:15 2017 No.9379614 >>9379609The probability of winning regardless of choice by playing the game a single time is 50%, yes. You either win or you lose.If you played multiple times though, you have a higher probability of getting more wins than losses if you always switch your choice.
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 13:44:27 2017 No.9379620 You should always switch
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 13:45:58 2017 No.9379622 >>9379599Thanks for the spacer tip.................../\................./..\................/....\.............../......\............../........\............./..........\.........1/100 99/100.........../..............\........../................\........./..................\........R..................W......../\.................../\......./..\................./..\....../....\.............../....\...1/2..1/2..........1/2..1/2..../........\.........../........\.../..........\........./..........\..R.........W.......R.........W1/200 1/200 99/200 99/200
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 13:46:07 2017 No.9379624 >>9379614Yeah I know, why are you telling me?
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 13:48:07 2017 No.9379632 >>9379512>i can't believe i'm on the science boardYou aren't on a science board
 >> Not actually a 50/50 man Tue Dec 19 13:49:05 2017 No.9379636 >>9379609By who?You?
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 13:53:12 2017 No.9379648 >>9379622R gets 1/200 + 99/200 = 50% (IF you choose at random at the end)But that was never the question. The trick to this fucking question is, that it asks the probability of a fixed strategy (Always Switch) OR (Always Stay) which skews the probability.(It's like: How many rectangles are there? --> Cue everyone taking it as "How many rectangular tiles are in this image?" and then complaining when people getting it wrong. Ask clearer questions.)
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 14:07:08 2017 No.9379692   >>9379648That's true, the random process is just the initial pick. Sorry.................../\................./..\................/....\.............../......\............../........\............./..........\.........1/100 99/100.........../..............\........../................\........./..................\........R..................WAfterwards, only two doors will be left, one W and one R, so that the operation of switching is effectively an inversion of the result (R->W and W->R), so that you flip the initial probabilities at arriving at the results, which yields the mentioned 2/3 of getting the right door in the 3 door case, as mentioned before.................../\................./..\................/....\.............../......\............../........\............./..........\.........1/100 99/100.........../..............\........../................\........./..................\........R..................W........|....................|....IF FLIP....... v...................v.......W...................R.....1/100...........99/100
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 14:11:14 2017 No.9379705 >>9379648That's true, the random process is just the initial pick. Sorry.................../\................./..\................/....\.............../......\............../........\............./..........\.........1/100 99/100.........../..............\........../................\........./..................\........R..................WAfterwards, only two doors will be left, one W and one R, so that the operation of switching doors is effectively an inversion of the result (R->W and W->R), which yields the mentioned 2/3 of getting the right door in the 3 door case.................../\................./..\................/....\.............../......\............../........\............./..........\.........1/100 99/100.........../..............\........../................\........./..................\........R..................W........|....................|....IF FLIP....... v...................v.......W...................R.....1/100...........99/100
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 14:59:07 2017 No.9379841 >>9379407Wow - sorry to hear about your low level of intelligence, OP. Maybe don't go around exposing yourself as a dummy.
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 19:23:51 2017 No.9380593 >>9379407The probability is obviously -1/12
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 19 19:54:35 2017 No.9380649 >>9379407Why don't you just stop posting shit and go one with fucking the goat?
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 20 14:57:28 2017 No.9382307 >>9379407I wonder if there are actually people out there whose intuition would lead them to believe this.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 20 18:03:10 2017 No.9382665 Are there still people who legit don't understand?
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 20 18:05:42 2017 No.9382667 File: 7 KB, 420x420, b36.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9379624Cause you are retarded.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 20 18:25:04 2017 No.9382701 >you pick a goat or a car>he reveals a goat>if you picked a goat, switching will get you a car>if you picked a car, switching will get you a goat>you had a bigger chance to pick a goat at the beginningtherefore you switch, because you are more likely in the situation where the unpicked door is a carliterally as simple as this you fucking mongoloids
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 20 18:33:12 2017 No.9382713 >2017>still replying to b8 threadssage
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 20 18:50:18 2017 No.9382749 >>9382307Well. The probability for getting a car is 50% IF you pick at random all the time. The question does not really highlight obviously that it asks for the probability of a different strategy (Always switch) or (Always stay).
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 20 18:51:56 2017 No.9382758 >>9382701If you switch you will win in 2 of 3 cases (because you will always switch from a goat to a car) and loose in 1 of 3 cases (because you picked the car at the start and always switch to a goat).
 >> !niqjediPCA Thu Dec 21 05:08:32 2017 No.9383866 >>9379407what is the practical application of this?
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 21 08:13:10 2017 No.9384077 >>9383866none, also most retards argue without using the Bayes theorem
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 21 08:31:19 2017 No.9384104 >>9383866>>9384077>what is the practical application of this?>nonethe entire question is a practical application of probability, what kind of stupid Q&A is this?
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 21 08:31:22 2017 No.9384105 >>9383866a tv show
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 21 08:37:48 2017 No.9384117 >>9384104>>9384105the rules of the TV show didn't allow for the contestant to change doors after the host starts opening them.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 21 08:45:38 2017 No.9384127 File: 292 KB, 736x1249, monk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] bro...the goat ain't real
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 21 08:48:37 2017 No.9384130 >>9384117heres a novel thought: the tv show is already fictional and you can therefore make up a similar one in which the rules do allow for the contestant to change doors after the host starts opening themor, you could make a real tv show with these rules
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 21 08:51:33 2017 No.9384137 >>9384130>practical application>fictionalthese threads get worse every year
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 21 11:35:56 2017 No.9384365 >>9379407If you flip a weighted coin, it is indeed heads or tails.If you pick a card from a deck that has 51 blue cards and one red, it is indeed red or blue.But the odds are not equally distributed.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 21 11:40:16 2017 No.9384377 >>9384130It is based on a real tv show, Let's Make a Deal, hosted by Monty Hall. Hence Monty Hall problem.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 21 11:47:17 2017 No.9384386 File: 10 KB, 189x267, 1512687267915.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] > If you take out the choosing door part, it's clearly 50% chance...Trash
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 21 12:26:35 2017 No.9384451 >>9379448no they arn't everyone understands shit like this intuitively the people that don't are dumb or trolling and hence dumb. You may be new but this is the not the first Monty Hall thread and it won't be the last
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 21 12:32:41 2017 No.9384467 you pick goat = you winprobability of picking goat = probability of winning = 2/3close this thread
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 21 13:05:03 2017 No.9384551 File: 302 KB, 769x588, 8uyKclo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >pick a door>another door has a goat>now you have two doors with a 50/50 goat or car>for some fucking reason you're supposed to be more likely to win if you switch doors?Mathfags are so fucking retarded.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 21 13:24:19 2017 No.9384589 >>9384551>Demonstrably true probability phenomenon.>"Hurr... stupid mathfags be retards."For those of you who need pictures and scary looking hags to explain shit to prevent your head from deflating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lb-6rxZxx0
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 21 14:05:34 2017 No.9384704 >>9384551>>for some fucking reason you're supposed to be more likely to win if you switch doors?If you choose to ALWAYS switch doors.Try imagining:There are 99 doors. One single door has a car behind it.If you choose a door the GM will open 97 doors that don't have a car behind them. You can then choose to switch to the remaining door.What is the probability that you win the car, if you ALWAYS switch.It's 1/99 * 0 + 98/99 * 1 = ~98,98%Why? If you have chosen the 1 door out of 99 you will win 0% of the time if you switch. If you have chosen one of the 98 doors without a car you will win 100% of the time if you switch.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 21 14:11:03 2017 No.9384716 >>9379407The chance of you getting a goat is actually 100% because he places the car after you've chosen if you'll switch or not.
 >> Anonymous Thu Dec 21 15:00:46 2017 No.9384872 >>9384704this is good thank you
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 22 00:23:13 2017 No.9385758 >>9379407I wrote up a python(3.6) script for you anon.1/3 : import random as rnddef mghtnotexist(changeChoice): D = [0,0,0,0,0] w = rnd.randint(0,4) #randomly select door as winner D[w] = 1 # set random element in D to 1 which is the winnig thing. choice = rnd.randint(0,4)# print (D)# print(choice) #remove all elements besides for the choice and one other. DTwoChoices = [] DTwoChoices.append(D[choice]) del D[choice] iterations = len(D)-1 for i in range(iterations): s = rnd.randint(0,len(D)-1) del D # print("We are going throught the iterations at ", i, "we randomly selected the index ", s, "and D is now: ", D) DTwoChoices.append(D[0])# print(DTwoChoices) if changeChoice == 1: return DTwoChoices[1] else: return DTwoChoices[0]
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 22 00:24:15 2017 No.9385760 >>9379407>>93857582/3def tochooseornottochoose(changeChoice): D = [0,0,0,0,0] w = rnd.randint(0,4) #randomly select door as winner D[w] = 1 # set random element in D to 1 which is the winnig thing. choice = rnd.randint(0,4) #remove all elements besides for the choice and one other. DTwoChoices = [] DTwoChoices.append(D[choice]) if w == choice: DTwoChoices.append(D[choice-1]) else: DTwoChoices.append(D[w]) if changeChoice == 1: return DTwoChoices[1] else: return DTwoChoices[0]
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 22 00:25:19 2017 No.9385763 >>9379407>>93857603/3winningrecords_dontchange = []winningrecords_change = []winningrecords_notgaranteed_dontchange = []winningrecords_notgaranteed_change = []for i in range(1000000): winningrecords_notgaranteed_dontchange.append(mghtnotexist(0)) winningrecords_notgaranteed_change.append(mghtnotexist(1)) winningrecords_dontchange.append(tochooseornottochoose(0)) winningrecords_change.append(tochooseornottochoose(1)) winningrecords_notgaranteed_dontchange_Average = sum(winningrecords_notgaranteed_dontchange)/1000000winningrecords_notgaranteed_change_Average = sum(winningrecords_notgaranteed_change)/1000000 print("Chances of winning without changing: ", winningrecords_notgaranteed_dontchange_Average)print("Chances of winning with changing: ", winningrecords_notgaranteed_change_Average) dontchangeAverage = sum(winningrecords_dontchange)/1000000changeAverage = sum(winningrecords_change)/1000000print("Chances of winning without changing: ", dontchangeAverage)print("Chances of winning with changing: ", changeAverage) # Not Garanteed one will win:# Chances of winning without changing: 0.200017# Chances of winning with changing: 0.199422# Garanteed one will win:# Chances of winning without changing: 0.200583# Chances of winning with changing: 0.799636
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 22 00:30:26 2017 No.9385780 >>9379407>>9385763These results illustrate two things.First, that when we are guaranteed that one of the choices is a 'winner', then what is essentially happening is that the rest of the choices are "squished" result into just the correct one. It is unlikely you randomly picked the correct one. This explains why changing your choice is much better since your first choice was out of the whole set but the second choice is a "squished" set. Second is that when we are not guaranteed one of the choices is correct it resembles our intuitive reasoning. That is, if we take out our choice from the set of possibilities, and randomly select another one, they are both equally as likely. Thus changing one's choice is pointless. Hope this helps anon!
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 22 00:45:55 2017 No.9385812 >>9385758Son. If you need whitespace: code-BB-Tags exist.(Look into the "normal" posting forms on subboards of 4chan to look if there are special rules or tags for that board or ability to upload more or different files.)
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 22 00:46:56 2017 No.9385818 >>9379407>having to code simulations to understand a simple problem than any 5 year old can solveThe absolute state of /sci/
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 22 01:02:10 2017 No.9385853 >>9385818Five year old would get tripped up by shoddily written questions that don't really highlight that the problem is asking "Imagine if contestant has decided that he will ALWAYS switch.".The problem with this question lies mainly with shitty question authors.I mean look at this shit!>Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?>Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?If you decide randomly on the spot instead of choosing a strategy like "always switch", the probability of this is actually 50/50.THIS is the bullshit this gotcha question hinges upon.Similar:>How many rectangular tiles do you see in this image?AND>How many different rectangles could you draw on these rectangular grid lines?GETS CONFLATED TO>How many rectangles do you see?Those questions hinge on different "normal" interpretations of what was actually asked.
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 22 01:09:19 2017 No.9385876 You have a 2/3 chance to pick a losing door.One losing door is always removed after picking, leaving only the winning door if you picked a losing one initially.Picking a losing door and switching thus always yields the winning door since it is the only other door remaining.Thus, switching carries the 2/3 chance of having picked the wrong door into a 2/3 chance of switching to the correct one.
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 22 02:12:16 2017 No.9385971 does this question depend upon the knowledge the person has of what had happened?Say there's a 100 doors, 1 has been picked by the player and the other 98 shown to have goats by the host. But now a third person who has no idea of what went on comes into the scene. Would this person be playing by the first person's possibilities or would they reset making it a 50/50?Also, if the guy chose to get rid of a door but in completely random way, would this change the probabilities or would it still be a 2/3 chance by switching?
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 22 02:23:20 2017 No.9385988 >>9385971Even if the first person decides to choose between the two doors randomly the probability will be 50%. If he decides to ALWAYS switch it will be ~66,6*%.If the third person learns or knows that the guy is in such a situation and gets to choose doors and decides to ALWAYS switch it will be again ~66,6*%. If he chooses randomly 50%, wheter he knows about the situation or just chooses between two doors (even though the probability calculation is different).
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 22 05:01:31 2017 No.9386138 File: 5 KB, 250x174, q5OL30E.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9385758>python>posting raw codehttps://www.openprocessing.org/sketch/480963
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 22 11:39:44 2017 No.9386513 >>9385853Fuck are you on about m8In a given instance of the game being played, switching is twice as likely to get you the car than staying. That's all there is to it. What's this nonsense about choosing strategies? You don't have to play more than once, multiple trials just demonstrate the odds.
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 22 11:47:07 2017 No.9386522 >>9385853>>9386513I mean you're on the game show once. You don't decide to "always" switch. You switch once. Which, I guess, is always, for as many times as you get to.
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 22 12:23:08 2017 No.9386551 >>9386513Twice as likely to win but still barely better than 50/50 is not an argument.
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 22 12:31:33 2017 No.9386565 >>9386551It's as good as it's going to get for this problem, which is the point. It also gets better with more doors. What do you actually want?
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 22 15:23:59 2017 No.9386879 >>9386513It matters.Choosing randomly at the end will get you odds of 50%.1/3 * 1/2 + 2/3 * 1/2 = 1/2 = 50%
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 22 18:56:00 2017 No.9387248 >>9385988If he decides whether or not he switches, the probability will be 66.6% for the times he switches and 33.3%for the times he does not switch. Assuming he survives being beaten by his wife's purse for being a dumbass for not switching.
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 22 19:31:09 2017 No.9387306 File: 41 KB, 410x250, monty_diagram.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] you change = 2/3 caryou stick = 2/3 goat
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 22 23:14:53 2017 No.9387851 >>9379407>You either DO or DON'T get hit by lightning. It's a 50% chance.
 >> Anonymous Fri Dec 22 23:16:41 2017 No.9387857 File: 30 KB, 1600x1200, mh.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Sat Dec 23 00:00:26 2017 No.9387920 I'll just leave this here.https://math.ucsd.edu/~crypto/Monty/montydoesnotknow.html
 >> Anonymous Sat Dec 23 00:24:14 2017 No.9387954 >>9387920I just played this for a lil bit and got 6 cars out of 11 attempts without switching... so..
 >> Anonymous Sat Dec 23 02:56:01 2017 No.9388183 >>9379546>I was only pretending to be retarded.
 >> Anonymous Sat Dec 23 03:05:47 2017 No.9388189 >>9384451>intuitivelylol
 >> Anonymous Sat Dec 23 03:12:46 2017 No.9388191 >>9387954This is an altered version of the game where you can immediately lose just by picking a door since the option exists for the car door to be revealed.
 >> Anonymous Sat Dec 23 07:58:53 2017 No.9388452 >>9386879I'm well aware but that's not the point at all. Please explain to me the functional difference between "choosing the strategy to always switch" and just switching the one time it comes up because after all you're only on the game show once. Tell me why that is a relevant distinction. I don't understand the whole point of that massive post which seems to be very careful and deliberate in its wording but makes no sense. I don't see the problem with the original question.
 >> Anonymous Sat Dec 23 08:02:04 2017 No.9388455 >>9385988"Switching" implies an awareness of the original choice, or at least an awareness that a choice was previously made. It's entirely different from just having to choose between two doors.
 >> Anonymous Sat Dec 23 16:06:32 2017 No.9389111 >>9388452Choosing to switch is not a random choice. You don't flip a coin. Think of it like ... he learns of the game and chooses to switch before the game has even started. Doesn't even really matter if he does it on the spot.You take a decision and stick to it, no matter what. You can calculate the odds of winning based on THAT choice. Choosing between the two options randomly has different odds.That you only appear on that game show once does not matter for the odds.Mind that the value of the odds will approached exactly in infinitely many games, but you could still suffer an improbable loosing streak of n loosing games where you decided to switch. It's unlikely but that's the way it is.>>9388455Switching randomly (with or without knowledge of the previous step) or choosing randomly between two doors have different probability calculations but the same odds of 50%.
 >> Anonymous Sat Dec 23 16:15:20 2017 No.9389127 >>9389111You told me literally nothing I didn't already know and I'm still confused as hell as to what the fuck >>9385853 is actually getting at. As far as I'm concerned the original question covers the problem in its entirety and the answer is a straightforward "yes".Also, with regards to switching, the point is that switching means you're aware that you're switching from something to something else. Even if you don't know which door was picked, switching will work just as well for you as if you had picked it yourself.
 >> Anonymous Sat Dec 23 16:28:22 2017 No.9389147 >>9389127Basically the way the question is most of the time asked turns it into a trick question, probably by conflating some views.It does not help that the probability is 50% if you choose randomly.>>9389127>switching means you're awareWell choosing randomly would probably be the choice choose wehter you switch randomly.So we have with different odds each.* Switch* Stay* Choose randomly whether to stay or switch
 >> Anonymous Sat Dec 23 17:12:30 2017 No.9389201 If you play the game once you will either win or lose. If you play multiple times, you will win more often by switching, but still have chances to lose by switching. There is no 100% win method and there is little to console a contestant who switched yet lost.
 >> Anonymous Sat Dec 23 17:45:40 2017 No.9389232 >>9379622>>9379599>>9379586>christmas tree ascii on /sci/reported for religion
 >> Anonymous Sat Dec 23 17:47:56 2017 No.9389235 >>9387306no. one of the three blue goat boxes disappears after the GM opening the first door
 >> Anonymous Sat Dec 23 18:00:02 2017 No.9389250 File: 12 KB, 220x229, 1512533156481.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] MERLIN'S FUCKING BEARD /SCI/ IF THIS IS REALLY TOO DIFFICULT FOR YOU BRAINDEAD AUTISTIC FUCKING RETARDS TO FIGURE OUT THEN WHY DON'T YOU RUN A GODDAMN SIMULATION TO PROVE THE ODDS IN PRACTICE
 >> Anonymous Sat Dec 23 18:03:28 2017 No.9389255 >>9389250If you don't understand why something is happening then the simulation is probably wrong.
 >> Anonymous Sat Dec 23 18:06:49 2017 No.9389263 File: 30 KB, 481x425, udenseretard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Sat Dec 23 19:18:35 2017 No.9389376 >>9379407Isn't there a proof that switching gives a higher probability of winning the prize? If so, why the fuck are these threads still a thing?
 >> Anonymous Sat Dec 23 19:20:35 2017 No.9389381 >>9389376It's an extremely simplified form of superposition, some people can only think in terms of absolute states.
 >> Anonymous Sun Dec 24 06:43:34 2017 No.9390189 >>9389147>Basically the way the question is most of the time asked turns it into a trick question, probably by conflating some views.HOWWHYWHAT
 >> Anonymous Sun Dec 24 14:11:51 2017 No.9390766 >>9389376>If so, why the fuck are these threads still a thing?because the ride never ends
 >> Anonymous Sun Dec 24 15:57:54 2017 No.9390949
 >> Anonymous Sun Dec 24 18:01:16 2017 No.9391144 >>9389147>choosing randomly whether you want a 1/3rd or 2/3rd chance of getting the car
 >> Anonymous Sun Dec 24 20:17:19 2017 No.9391378 >>9391144Which coincidentally gives you 50% odds! Even if it is more complicated to calculate than simply choosing randomly between two doors.>>9390189(Not) taking your audience's previous knowledge into account. And then complaining or boasting how stupid they are.
 >> Anonymous Mon Dec 25 04:45:13 2017 No.9391937 >>9379431Is the Monty door problem mathematically similar to the question of whether light is a particle or a wave?
 >> Anonymous Mon Dec 25 05:06:47 2017 No.9391954 >>9391937only if the goats are autistic
 >> Anonymous Mon Dec 25 05:43:10 2017 No.9391990 mathfags will try their damndest to tell me to switch but either door originally had a 1/3 chance of having a car. switching doesnt increase your initial odds lol
 >> Anonymous Mon Dec 25 06:14:34 2017 No.9392019 >>9391937No. I guess? >>9391990Try imagining it with 9999 doors.If you choose to switch the probability is:(Chose correctly) 1/9999 * 0 + (Chose incorrectly) 9998/9999 = ~99,99989%(Because the GM removes 9997 doors that are incorrect, after the first option has been chosen)
 >> Anonymous Mon Dec 25 07:55:06 2017 No.9392127 >>9391378>(Not) taking your audience's previous knowledge into account. And then complaining or boasting how stupid they are.I feel like you're poorly arguing a very trivial point.
 >> Anonymous Mon Dec 25 10:53:13 2017 No.9392274 No matter how many doors there are it's always 50/50 either your wrong or your right
 >> Anonymous Mon Dec 25 11:04:00 2017 No.9392286 >Getting more information doesnt change the oddsIf you dont understand Monty you are retarded
 >> Anonymous Mon Dec 25 11:10:26 2017 No.9392295 >>9379407>OP either is or isn't a faggot>Despite gay people making up less than 10% of the population, the chance that OP is a faggot is 50%
 >> Anonymous Mon Dec 25 14:40:02 2017 No.9392673 >>9392274Stop.
 >> Anonymous Mon Dec 25 17:52:20 2017 No.9393025 >>9392295>the chance that OP is a faggot is 100%fixed
 >> Anonymous Mon Dec 25 18:02:43 2017 No.9393045 >>9392274only in the same way if i think i bought a winning lottery ticket, it's always 50/50 either i'm wrong or right
 >> Anonymous Mon Dec 25 18:18:00 2017 No.9393061 this board is worse than facebook, brainlets who don't understand simple probability and trolls everywhere
 >> Anonymous Mon Dec 25 18:26:59 2017 No.9393077 File: 4 KB, 211x239, f2f4f2f24g.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9391990You fucking idiot. The probability changes because YOU HAVE GAINED INFORMATION.
 >> Anonymous Mon Dec 25 18:33:16 2017 No.9393086 >>9393077you now know that one of the doors you did not choose had a goat.which is something you already knew before.no new infoThere was originally a 2/3rd chance the car was behind a door you didn't choose, and now that entire 2/3rds chance has been consolidated behind the only remaining unopened door you didn't choose.If at the beginning you had the choice beween choosing door 1 vs choosing door 2 AND door 3, which choice would you make?
 >> Anonymous Mon Dec 25 20:54:34 2017 No.9393315 >>9392127>trivial pointUnless when talking about WHY it fucks up peoples reasoning.
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 01:48:04 2017 No.9393687 File: 135 KB, 338x220, deepfried_1514270854817.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 05:12:07 2017 No.9393879 I understand it mathematically but I think the question is still stupid because it changes the scenario partway through. That's the part that screws with people. They're thinking about the final choice (two doors only) as an isolated case, and of course if it were always just the two doors with 1 prize then the probability is 50/50. In the true scenario, at that point, the host IS still asking you to choose between two doors, one of which hides the prize. It's a trick. The third door that originally made it a two-thirds chance gets removed from the scenario, but the probability still behaves as if there are three doors in play? It's not unreasonable for people to think the chance becomes 50/50.
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 05:39:38 2017 No.9393904 I think I understand you, OP.Probabilities is just a hack. It's a glitch in reality, and the fact that it CAN be used in real situations is a mind blower.The thing with probabilities is that they don't say anything about the event you're looking for. It tells you what to do.Take the chance of raining, for example. If the chance of raining is at 30% or if it is at 80%, your knowledge about the actual raining event is zero. You don't know if it is going to rain or not, and never will. But if the chance of raining is 80%, you might want to carry an umbrella.The same goes for the Monty Hall problem. The knowledge about which door contains the prize is zero at every instance. But you can narrow down what you should do in order to obtain the prize with probabilities.
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 05:43:53 2017 No.9393910 >>9393315The reason for that is that people just don't get how the second choice isn't simply a choice between two doors. That part is counter-intuitive but it doesn't make it a trick question. I don't why you're bringing all this other shit into it.
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 05:47:36 2017 No.9393915 >>9393904This. There's no reasoning as to why probabilities work in a deterministic universe.
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 05:50:28 2017 No.9393917 >>9393904That's basically it, probability gives you the opportunity to make an educated guess based on incomplete information.In reality, in the Monty Hall problem, there's no 2/3 or 50%, one of the doors has a 100% chance of having the price behind it, and the two others have 0%. Probabilities aren't a physical property of the universe as far as we understand it.
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 05:53:08 2017 No.9393919 >>9393917woah
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 06:43:49 2017 No.9393969 >>9393917>what is QM
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 06:47:59 2017 No.9393973 File: 17 KB, 240x297, Screenshot_20171223-184103.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9379431LOL at your faulty logic
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 09:51:28 2017 No.9394249 >>9379407P(Your original choice is correct) = 1/3. This fact isn't negated by opening another door.
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 09:53:19 2017 No.9394250 >>9393879Additionally: IF you choose randomly between the two possibilities (Stay, Switch) the probability is actually 50%!
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 09:54:22 2017 No.9394252 >>9393904Probabilities are limits that converge to a specified probability.
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 09:56:15 2017 No.9394255 >>9393910Because it matters IMO.
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 10:09:57 2017 No.9394266 >>9394250That's a neat little fact but still entirely irrelevant to the question.
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 11:09:35 2017 No.9394340 >>9387306My compeng professor would have discarded identical results as poor optimization or "don't cares". There's better ways of weighting a result than duplication. There's 2 results, which make unweighted results 50/50. You can certainly get to 1/3 and 2/3 by giving more weight to one result, but pretending that there's more results that cause that probability is just deception.
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 11:29:34 2017 No.9394361 >>9394340Your professor is an idiot.
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 12:17:38 2017 No.9394468 >>9379462>>9390949the will always be one goat behind one of the 3 doors, thus: it can be (1 being the goat:)1 0 00 1 00 0 1
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 12:33:42 2017 No.9394493 >>9394361saving literal billions of transistors on this sort of thing isn't idiocy.
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 13:00:50 2017 No.9394561 >>9379407PERFORM THE EXPERIMENT 10 TIMES AND POST THE OUTCOMES
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 13:02:49 2017 No.9394564 File: 15 KB, 679x192, firefox_2017-12-26_13-01-29.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>9379407if you ignore everything that happened and just look at the last 2 doors, you are correct, it's 50/50. but what kind of fucking retard are you if you ignore the whole point of the problem?
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 13:14:10 2017 No.9394590 >>9394340>>9394361no, he's an idiot for misunderstanding the professor
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 13:20:30 2017 No.9394599 >>9379431no you fucking retard. if you had two cards, i select the wrong one and you tell me i selected the wrong one and i get to choose again, the probability would be 100% every time.
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 18:16:43 2017 No.9395241 >>9394250because you're randomly choosing whether you want 2/3rd or 1/3rd chance of winning, and that averages to your 50%
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 19:19:58 2017 No.9395392 >>9379407Wow...this discussion should not take more than 5 minutes. If you actually believe the OP you do NOT belong on this board.
 >> Anonymous Tue Dec 26 20:02:28 2017 No.9395473 >>9395241No shit.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 01:14:58 2017 No.9395941 >>9384704This is the best explanation out of all the other examples. /thread everyone, no need to argue anymore.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 01:27:02 2017 No.9395954 >>9385988The first person doesn't choose between the two doors randomly, the question said he has ALREADY chosen a door. After this choice one of the losing doors is revealed. Because the person is more likely to choose a losing door (2/3 chance of choosing a loser versus 1/3 for a winner), it is much more likely that the other door is the winner, so it is best for the person to switch their choice.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 01:47:52 2017 No.9395974 >>9395941>try imagining the problem as a completely different problemNo. These more-than-3 door examples do not help anyone. Or maybe they do. Probably not. If they can't understand it's not 50/50 when the problem boils down to only two doors, whether they start with 3 or 100 doesn't change anything, moreover you have a 99% chance of winning by switching in the 100 doors version, which also skirts past a logic problem presented by the original question of even if it might be 66% win by switch, there is still a big chance to lose by switching. The issue isn't about finding a method that guarantees wins, yet virtually guaranteeing wins is what happens when switching in 100 doors.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 01:49:18 2017 No.9395977 >>9395974I disagree. More doors makes the explanation more intuitive for many people.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 01:50:20 2017 No.9395979 >>9395974>>9395977I do agree that some particularly stupid people (see this thread) are beyond help, though.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 01:53:53 2017 No.9395984 >>9387954Switch to Monty knows.
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 02:47:13 2017 No.9396059 >>9395974it reveals that Monty is opening (n-2) doors, not just 1
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 02:51:34 2017 No.9396063 Man I hate probability
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 02:51:58 2017 No.9396064 >>9379407>THE STATE OF /SCI/ This is literally Probability 101, here's a lecture about this very problem if brainlets still don't understandhttps://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-042j-mathematics-for-computer-science-fall-2010/video-lectures/lecture-18-probability-introduction/
 >> Anonymous Wed Dec 27 07:16:04 2017 No.9396389 >>9379407Low quality bait
>>