PARADE!
-
@TDWTF123 said:
if there are two doors, a half, and if three, two-thirds.
You're picking from three doors.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
@boomzilla said:
@TDWTF123 said:
Can I just check that you are in fact a native English speaker before I start taking the piss out of you for that?@dhromed said:
Remove door after pick: 33.3% chance of picking the prize at first
You're begging the question. The chance is either 33 and a third percent, or half, depending on how you've interpreted the scenario. In the latter case, the choices you're offering would be 'fifty percent or half?'Now you've misused "begging the question" in a novel way.
Yes, I'm a native English speaker. Can you explain why you think you were using "begging the question" appropriately here? I mean, he didn't show his work, but I think that's an acceptable thing for this step, and isn't the same as begging the question.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
@boomzilla said:
What makes any of the doors irrelevant?
Why are your questions so much dumber and more boring than Dhromed's?What makes a door relevant? Hint: it's not that someone says so.
So...asking an innumerate to explain his innumeracy is boring and dumb? Probably true.
In this case, they are all doors that can be picked. They are all either winners or losers. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you can't back up your wild assertions.
-
The mistake that a lot of people, and TDWTF, make, is that they think they're doing two independent picks, like so:
- pick from three doors. Obviously win chance is 1/3
- remove an empty door
- oh not my first pick was competely irrelevant!
- pick again. Obviously win chance 1/2.But unfortunately, you're not picking a second time. You pick once, that door is placed in your hand and the host can't touch it. You make one pick, one pick only, with a lose chance of 2/3. So you swap.
-
Oh, for the love of fuck... are y'all intentionally dense? The crux is that the host knows what you've picked, and will always remove a losing door.
SCENARIOS, where W= winning door, L = losing door, (p) = door you picked
1) W(p) L1 L2 => W(p) L1 => W(p) = win (no switch)
2) W(p) L1 L2 => W(p) L1 => W L(p) = lose (switch)
3) W L1(p) L2 => W L1(p) => W L1(p) = lose (no switch)
4) W L1(p) L2 => W L1(p) => W(p) L1 = win (switch)
5) W L1 L2(p) => W L2(p) => W L2(p) = lose (no switch)
6) W L1 L2(p) => W L2(p) => W(p) L2 = win (switch)
THEREFORE there is 1/6 win (no switch), 2/6 win (switch), 1/6 lose (switch), 2/6 lose (no switch).
THEREFORE if you switch, you will win 2/6 times and lose 1/6 times
THEREFORE if you don't switch, you will win 1/6 times and lose 2/6 times
Note that there is no scenario where the W door is eliminated. THAT IS THE KEY TO THE WHOLE THING. Otherwise it would be a straight up 1/3 Win vs. 2/3 Lose.
If you disagree, you are an idiot. No if and or but. A straight up moronic fucking idiot who can't do math or use Google. You are stupid.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
Bayes mothafuggas
I can't tell if you're serious. Your scenarios indicate a 2/3 win chance for switching:
2) W(p) L1 L2 => W(p) L1 => W L(p) = lose (switch)
4) W L1(p) L2 => W L1(p) => W(p) L1 = win (switch)
6) W L1 L2(p) => W L2(p) => W(p) L2 = win (switch)
1) W(p) L1 L2 => W(p) L1 => W(p) = win (no switch)
5) W L1 L2(p) => W L2(p) => W L2(p) = lose (no switch)
3) W L1(p) L2 => W L1(p) => W L1(p) = lose (no switch)
-
@TDWTF123 said:
You're still missing the point. You don't need to Monte Carlo it, because the answers to the two problems are both obvious; if there are two doors, a half, and if three, two-thirds. The only question is whether the MHP is the problem you think it is, and that can't be solved using probability.
So, to reiterate, the MHP is not a maths problem. It's a joke/argument-starter/conversational hand-grenade.
QED, I think.Your point appears to be, "If something is obvious to me, it isn't math." But the scariest words that math teachers say are, "It is therefore obvious that..."
-
@Lorne Kates said:
If you disagree, you are an idiot. No if and or but. A straight up moronic fucking idiot who can't do math or use Google. You are stupid.
This is always the best part about a wrong answer. It brought a smile to my face on a cold autumn day.
-
I'm just going to ignore Boomzilla, since he's plainly boringly innumerate.@dhromed said:
You're picking from three doors.
Explain why you think so, please. As I've repeatedly stated, the trick is that you're told there are three doors, but only two actually matter. Please stop trying to sidetrack the discussion to other things and just deal with the basic point.
As I've already demonstrated, doors are not relevant by default - the fire exit, etc. - and so if you want to argue that any given door is relevant to the discussion, you need to explain why.
@dhromed said:But unfortunately, you're not picking a second time. You pick once, that door is placed in your hand and the host can't touch it. You make one pick, one pick only, with a lose chance of 2/3. So you swap.
Whatever mistakes others make aren't relevant, although I've never encountered anyone with that batshit interpretation you're raising. I think it's a straw man.
People who say swapping makes no difference say so because they think both doors have an equal chance of winning, not because they think they're picking twice. (That really makes no sense. No-one ever says anything about a second pick.)
-
@Lorne Kates said:
Note that there is no scenario where the W door is eliminated.
Quite. Good to see that at least one person gets it.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
Explain why you think so, please.
Because it says so:
@wikipedia said:
you're given the choice of three doors
There's no trickery involved. That's it. That's all there is.
-
@dhromed said:
@TDWTF123 said:
In the beginning you are gvien a choice of 3 doors. But then the number of doors that you can choose from changes from 3 to 2. That's the part people miss. You start with a choice of 3 doors but then one of them is opened to reveal a goat.Explain why you think so, please.
Because it says so:@wikipedia said:
you're given the choice of three doors
Are you going to abandon your original choice and take the door that has been revealed to be a goat? No. (well . . . . unless you really like goats).
Since you are never going to select that door, it is no longer part of the equation and it makes no sense to include it in any further discussion. So now the number of doors has been reduced to 2. You now have 2 doors to choose from -- one has a prize and the other has something else. You can't have a 2 in 3 chance of anything when there are only 2 choices. @dhromed said:
There's no trickery involved. That's it. That's all there is.
-
@dhromed said:
Begging the question again. I've already demonstrated that such tricks/problems/riddles can and do include saying things that aren't true in the build-up.@TDWTF123 said:
Explain why you think so, please.
Because it says so:
Three guests check into a hotel room. The clerk says the bill is $30, so each guest pays $10. Later the clerk realizes the bill should only be $25. To rectify this, he gives the bellhop $5 to return to the guests. On the way to the room, the bellhop realizes that he cannot divide the money equally. As the guests didn't know the total of the revised bill, the bellhop decides to just give each guest $1 and keep $2 for himself. Each guest got $1 back: so now each guest only paid $9; bringing the total paid to $27. The bellhop has $2. And $27 + $2 = $29 so, if the guests originally handed over $30, what happened to the remaining $1?
You do see that although this is technically an accurate statement, it is deliberately misleading, yes?So you can't argue with a contention that the MHP works in the same way by relying on a claim it makes about itself.
I'll ask again, and try and actually think about it this time: what makes a door relevant? It's not a rhetorical question.
-
OK the million doors have been brought up before but have not been explained correctly. Say there are a million doors; behind one is a car, behind each other is a goat. You pick a door. The host reveals 999,998 goats, leaving just two doors: your first guess and the (almost certainly) correct door. You (intuitively) had a one in a million shot at getting it right from the start; that fact has not changed. Therefore with overwhelming odds you should switch.
-
@joe.edwards said:
OK the million doors have been brought up before but have not been explained correctly. Say there are a million doors; behind one is a car, behind each other is a goat. You pick a door. The host reveals 999,998 goats, leaving just two doors: your first guess and the (almost certainly) correct door. You (intuitively) had a one in a million shot at getting it right from the start; that fact has not changed. Therefore with overwhelming odds you should switch.
Then what happens if there are TWO million doors?
-
@TDWTF123 said:
I'm just going to ignore Boomzilla, since he's plainly boringly innumerate.
Says the guy who gets stuck on two when he tries counting to three!
-
@TDWTF123 said:
So you can't argue with a contention that the MHP works in the same way by relying on a claim it makes about itself.
I don't think anyone but you are claiming that the MHP is misleading. Something has certainly misled your (and Lorne's and Heffe's) understanding of it. I laid out the probabilities above that show how it all works. Lorne did too, but then for some reason his conclusion assumed that you could choose to both switch and keep your pick. Maybe that's the Monty Hall Problem: Quantum Mechanics.
@TDWTF123 said:
I'll ask again, and try and actually think about it this time: what makes a door relevant? It's not a rhetorical question.
There are three doors where the prize can be. Among the doors concealing the prize, there are three. These are the three doors described in the problem.
Here's a non-rhetorical question for you: If you had just one chance to pick the door with the prize, what do you think would be the probability that you found the prize? The answer to this is the foundation of the solution.
-
@Ronald said:
Then what happens if there are TWO million doors?
That's a lot of goat shit to clean up after the show.
-
Slightly different problems, still three doors with one car and two goats:
You may pick two doors. What's the probability of winning?
You may pick two doors. From those two, one door containing a goat is removed. What's the probability of winning?
You may pick one door. You can now choose to switch and take both remaining doors, or keep the one door you already have chosen. How do you maximize you probability of winning?
-
@joe.edwards said:
OK the million doors have been brought up before but have not been explained correctly. Say there are a million doors; behind one is a car, behind each other is a goat. You pick a door. The host reveals 999,998 goats, leaving just two doors: your first guess and the (almost certainly) correct door. You (intuitively) had a one in a million shot at getting it right from the start; that fact has not changed. Therefore with overwhelming odds you should switch.
For god's sake, would people stop explaining the conditional probability problem? No-one was arguing about that. The discussion is about whether the conditional probability problem is in fact what the MHP involves.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
@joe.edwards said:
The only difference in this problem and that one is the number of doors involved.OK the million doors have been brought up before but have not been explained correctly. Say there are a million doors; behind one is a car, behind each other is a goat. You pick a door. The host reveals 999,998 goats, leaving just two doors: your first guess and the (almost certainly) correct door. You (intuitively) had a one in a million shot at getting it right from the start; that fact has not changed. Therefore with overwhelming odds you should switch.
For god's sake, would people stop explaining the conditional probability problem? No-one was arguing about that. The discussion is about whether the conditional probability problem is in fact what the MHP involves.
You know what? Fuck this. You're not this stupid, I can't believe that. Troll fail.
-
@joe.edwards said:
The only difference in this problem and that one is the number of doors involved.
Quite. Which is why it's also completely fucking irrelevant. Seriously, what's wrong with you? Are you incapable of understanding that this is not a discussion about probability even after that's been clearly stated several times?
-
@TDWTF123 said:
@joe.edwards said:
The only difference in this problem and that one is the number of doors involved.
Quite. Which is why it's also completely fucking irrelevant. Seriously, what's wrong with you? Are you incapable of understanding that this is not a discussion about probability even after that's been clearly stated several times?
So you agree, they're both conditional logic problems.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
in fact there are never actually three doors. There's the one you pick, and the one the host leaves you. The one he 'takes away' was never part of the equation to start with.
And yet, people who don't switch doors after picking one have exactly a 1/3 chance of of getting the prize. Where did that 3 come from?
-
@joe.edwards said:
@TDWTF123 said:
What we're talking about, once again for those who are hard of thinking, is whether the MHP actually takes that form or not. If it does, then the number of doors doesn't matter as long as it's three or more. If there are, in fact, only two doors, though, then it's not the same problem at all.@joe.edwards said:
The only difference in this problem and that one is the number of doors involved.
Quite. Which is why it's also completely fucking irrelevant. Seriously, what's wrong with you? Are you incapable of understanding that this is not a discussion about probability even after that's been clearly stated several times?
So you agree, they're both conditional logic problems.
No-one's arguing about the solution of conditional probability problems, because that's all obvious. Just about whether the MHP is any such thing, or just a trick designed to sound like one.
-
@anonymous234 said:
And yet, people who don't switch doors after picking one have exactly a 1/3 chance of of getting the prize. Where did that 3 come from?
Another question-begger. If there are only two doors, then the people who don't switch have a 1/2 chance of winning, same as those who do.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
No-one's arguing about the solution of conditional probability problems, because that's all obvious. Just about whether the MHP is any such thing, or just a trick designed to sound like one.
Sure, lots of people are arguing about the conditional probability problem. They have a hard time understanding what the actual conditions are. Maybe that's what you're trying to say? You're upset because the problem is figuring out the conditions, not the arithmetic? You're not trying to say anything that anyone disagrees with. The arithmetic is the least interesting thing about probability. It's always mostly about understanding the conditions. And the "trick," as you are so interested in dismissing it, is key to understanding the answer to the conditional probability.
You did a really good job trolling us, though. Of that there can be no doubt. I'm not sure if Lorne and Heffe were serious, though.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@TDWTF123 said:
@joe.edwards said:
The only difference in this problem and that one is the number of doors involved.
Quite. Which is why it's also completely fucking irrelevant. Seriously, what's wrong with you? Are you incapable of understanding that this is not a discussion about probability even after that's been clearly stated several times?
So you agree, they're both conditional logic problems.This feels like the scene in Airplane where people queue up to slap some sense into one of the passengers.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
people who don't switch have a 1/2 chance of winning, same as those who do.
Run the experiment. The MHP is a fairly strict description, so unlike the tip problem, it's implementable. Go. Go do it. Get back to us with the results.
@fakeTDWTF123 said:
no
Welp.
-
@El_Heffe said:
But then the number of doors that you can choose from changes from 3 to 2.
Only if your inital pick and the switch-pick are independent. But that's not what the MHP describes. You're not re-choosing from 2 doors.
If the doors were re-randomized after you have selected your door and the other goat is revealed, then yes, suddenly the door that Monty opens is completely irrelevant, and you get your 50/50 odds.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
Another question-begger. If there are only two doors, then the people who don't switch have a 1/2 chance of winning, same as those who do.
If there are only two possibilities, e.g. win or lose, then there must be a 50% chance of either outcome. Obviously. Duh. Let's play the lottery.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
@anonymous234 said:
And yet, people who don't switch doors after picking one have exactly a 1/3 chance of of getting the prize. Where did that 3 come from?
Another question-begger. If there are only two doors, then the people who don't switch have a 1/2 chance of winning, same as those who do.Damnit. There's no question begging going on there. I could care less about people abusing language like this.
-
@Faxmachinen said:
If there are only two possibilities, e.g. win or lose, then there must be a 50% chance of either outcome. Obviously. Duh. Let's play the lottery.
There's a 100% chance that you're right or wrong.
-
@boomzilla said:
Damnit. There's no question begging going on there. I could care less about people abusing language like this.
I have another problem for TDWTF; it involves a compass, a straightedge, and a circle.
-
Suppose that the game host does not open any doors, but lets you choose between getting the one door you picked, or getting both of the two remaining doors. What would you choose then?
-
@Faxmachinen said:
Suppose that the game host does not open any doors, but lets you choose between getting the one door you picked, or getting both of the two remaining doors. What would you choose then?
I like that.
-
Anybody who spends more words on their provocation than their respondents collectively spend on their responses loses at trolling.
The Monty Hall problem, as generally stated and widely understood, is a solved problem. The answer is that switching doors doubles your chance of winning, from 1/3 to 2/3. There are many well constructed explanations of why this is so available on the web.
The problem statement is clear and unambiguous. The only "trick" is that the door-removal step does lead some people to jump to the conclusion that the winning chances post-removal are 1/2 vs 1/2 rather than 1/3 vs 2/3. Many people fall for this trick; I know I did on first encountering the problem.
People who continue to argue that it is the correct answer, despite having it repeatedly explained exactly how and why this is untrue, are merely demonstrating a personality flaw that limits their ability to admit error. I would personally never hire such a person, and if managed by one would change jobs. Perhaps the Monty Hall problem should be an interview question.
-
@dhromed said:
Run the experiment. The MHP is a fairly strict description, so unlike the tip problem, it's implementable. Go. Go do it. Get back to us with the results.
So you're still acting like there's some debate over how to calculate the odds in either the two-door or three-door situations. There is not. We all (apart from Boomzilla) understand how both trivially simple solutions work.
The question is whether there are in fact two relevant doors or three. And since you're unwilling to give any reason why you think there are three, beyond your now-proven-erroneous assumption that the riddle could not possibly be deliberately misleading, it's impossible to go any further in explaining to you why your interpretation is mistaken.
So, do you want to answer this time? Or to concede the point? Or are you going to do the equivalent of kicking the game-board over because you've lost, and refuse to answer the simple question whilst still insisting I'm wrong?Or are we just trolling Boomzilla now?
@Faxmachinen said:Suppose that the game host does not open any doors, but lets you choose between getting the one door you picked, or getting both of the two remaining doors. What would you choose then?
And another doing the same... sigh
Imagine the game host does not open either door, but lets you choose between getting the one door that you picked, or the remaining one door. What would you choose then?
Once again, we are not discussing how to calculate the odds. We're discussing what the starting conditions actually are. Assuming there to be three doors is begging the question.
-
@flabdablet said:
The problem statement is clear and unambiguous.
Why do you think so? If you want to make that statement, damn well justify it. What makes you think there are three doors? What makes those doors relevant to the discussion?
-
@TDWTF123 said:
We're discussing what the starting conditions actually are. Assuming there to be three doors is begging the question.
No, assuming there are three doors is reading the problem description.
I am happy to help you lose at trolling, if that is your wish.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
Why do you think so?
Looked it up on Wikipedia and there it was, all clear and unambiguous.
-
@flabdablet said:
@TDWTF123 said:
FUCKING HELL DO YOU PEOPLE NOT READ THE THREAD? That's already been dealt with as an argument, and shown to be an untenable assumption. You cannot rely on statements the riddle makes about itself.Why do you think so?
Looked it up on Wikipedia and there it was, all clear and unambiguous.
What makes the doors relevant to the problem? Come on, if they're actually relevant (and you understand your interpretation of the MHP) you shouldn't have any trouble explaining why.
I'd explain it to you, but you'll just ignore everything I'm saying again unless you actually take a stake in answering the question yourself.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
So you're still acting like there's some debate over how to calculate the odds in either the two-door or three-door situations. There is not. We all (apart from Boomzilla) understand how both trivially simple solutions work.
Are you reading a different thread?
@TDWTF123 said:
Or are we just trolling Boomzilla now?
It seems like just you. But I'm sure IHBT.
@TDWTF123 said:
Assuming there to be three doors is begging the question.
TRWTF. Has anyone else figured out what this is supposed to mean?
-
@TDWTF123 said:
FUCKING HELL DO YOU PEOPLE NOT READ THE THREAD?
Sure. And what I see when I read the thread is a bunch of people patiently trying to outline the reasoning behind the correct solution to the MHP, and incoherent rageface attempts from you to defend an untenable position that seems to have only a tenuous connection to the problem as stated.Here is the MHP as posed and discussed on Wikipedia, just so you don't get to derail this even further by defacing the page:
@MHP said:
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?
The fact that you have an initial choice of three doors is right there, clear and unambiguous, in the first sentence of the problem statement. This is not a "statement the riddle makes about itself", whatever that means. It's the problem statement. I believe most people would agree that if you're going to claim that any piece of the problem statement is irrelevant, it's on you to explain why rather than merely make the claim.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
You cannot rely on statements the riddle makes about itself.
So we should just make up the problems ourselves? Or what?
@TDWTF123 said:
I'd explain it to you, but you'll just ignore everything I'm saying again unless you actually take a stake in answering the question yourself.
The rest of us have explained why three doors are relevant. So far, we just have your paranoid ravings about how you can't trust the text of the problem to tell us about the problem. Perhaps we can film it and then slow it down to get a glimpse of your shoulder aliens.
-
I tire of this.
TDWTF, get some playing cards (say, two jokers and a king), a die and maybe a friend to play the host, and do the experiment. Do it. Follow the instructions given by the problem statement to the letter, and do the experiment. For the love of all that is empirical, do the experiment.
-
@boomzilla said:
The rest of us have explained why three doors are relevant.
Yeah, but TDWTF believes the MHP text is a scam. I don't know why, yet.
-
@flabdablet said:
@TDWTF123 said:
FUCKING HELL DO YOU PEOPLE NOT READ THE THREAD?
Sure. And what I see when I read the thread is a bunch of people patiently trying to outline the reasoning behind the correct solution to the MHP, and incoherent rageface attempts from you to defend an untenable position that seems to have only a tenuous connection to the problem as stated.
You still think that despite it being repeatedly stated that the discussion is not about that? You're either a complete idiot, or you haven't read the thread.
@the same idiot said:
OK, so that's firmly established then: you haven't actually read the thread. I've explained at least twice why assuming the MHP has no trick involved is not a tenable assumption, showing examples of other similar riddles which clearly have tricks. When we're discussing whether or not there is some such trick here, of course you can't assume that there is not as part of your answer: that's begging the question.Here is the MHP as posed and discussed on Wikipedia, just so you don't get to derail this even further by defacing the page:
@MHP said:
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?
The fact that you have an initial choice of three doors is right there, clear and unambiguous, in the first sentence of the problem statement. This is not a "statement the riddle makes about itself", whatever that means. It's the problem statement. I believe most people would agree that if you're going to claim that any piece of the problem statement is irrelevant, it's on you to explain why rather than merely make the claim.
It's blatantly obvious that the question mentions three doors, but the discussion is about whether all three are actually relevant to the problem. If they are, obviously it's a trivial conditional probability problem we're dealing with; if not, it's a degenerate case with a completely trivial answer.
What we are discussing, once again, is not how to solve those two problems, because anyone who's not innumerate can see how to do that. We're discussing which of those two problems the MHP actually represents.
If you want to argue that it's the three-door version, then you need to explain why a) any door is relevant and b) show that all three doors have the same relevance. This stuff's pretty simple, so all I'm seeing here is that most of you lot don't have any logic or thinking skills. I can see why Blakey left, to be honest, because I'm not getting the same level of intellect responding to me as back in the good old days. Say what you like about Blakey or Morbs, even SpectateSwamp, but at least they weren't thick as two short planks.
-
@dhromed said:
Fucksake, are you a complete moron or just not reading? No-one's arguing about how to solve either problem. The question is which one the problem actually is. Why fucking three cards?TDWTF, get some playing cards (say, two jokers and a king), a die and maybe a friend to play the host, and do the experiment. Do it. Follow the instructions given by the problem statement to the letter, and do the experiment. For the love of all that is empirical, do the experiment.
You appear to be entirely unable to justify the assumption you've made. I had higher hopes of you. Now stop begging the question with your three-door assumption and actually explain why all three doors are relevant.
-
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
The rest of us have explained why three doors are relevant.
Yeah, but TDWTF believes the MHP text is a scam. I don't know why, yet.The continued asininity on TDWTF123's part (and politeness on mine) says pure trolling.
Begging the question - Wikipedia
