Because nothing shuffles between round 1 and 2. Your odds at the beginning are your odds at the end.I'm still trying to figure out why Araysar thinks round 1 has no impact on round 2.
There is nothing 'extremely debatable' about the Monty Hall problem. The correct strategy is to always switch your pick. Several links to explanations have been provided.Because nothing shuffles between round 1 and 2. Your odds at the beginning are your odds at the end.
You RRP'ed him for not agreeing on an extremely debatable area? You are kidding right Tuco?
Fix my poll then please.
This explains the odds and choices perfectly. RRP is still retarded thohttps://www.khanacademy.org/math/pro...y-hall-problem
The number of resources dedicated to explaining this problem is astounding. How is that hunt for the PhD in stats who can't do stats going Ara?
I doubt you could find one expert that currently disputes it.To be fair to Araysar, haven't quite a few experts disputed this issue?
Yeah but we've already seen all the boobs in this thread a bunch of times.I haven't had this much fun reading a thread since the "Vicoden, Gigarettes, and Fake Tits" thread. Pure awesome!
No. A number of laymen have disputed it as far back as 1975, they were arguing with a professor at Berkley. Would you care to guess who was right? There is no one with a degree in stats, at any level, who disputes the answer.To be fair to Araysar, haven't quite a few experts disputed this issue?
It's actually pretty similar to the plane/treadmill thing. It's all about how it's worded, and the assumptions people make about the rules.I doubt you could find one expert that currently disputes it.
Eh, I disagree. I doubt you could word it differently thanIt's actually pretty similar to the plane/treadmill thing. It's all about how it's worded, and the assumptions people make about the rules.
And get a much different response from a group of people. It's one of those problems where the more words you put into the problem to direct them to the right answer the more complicated you make it.original_sl 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?
According to some of the articles linked in this thread, the people debating Savant are mathematicians and professors.No. A number of laymen have disputed it as far back as 1975, they were arguing with a professor at Berkley. Would you care to guess who was right? There is no one with a degree in stats, at any level, who disputes the answer.
Curiously, and this is new to me, Monty Hall apparently wrote to Selvin with his own explanation. Monty Hall got it right, saying something along the lines of "Eliminating a box gives the contestant the feeling that the odds are now 50/50, even though they remain the same for his first choice, 1/3." The fact that Monty Hall knew the right answer makes me happy.
Find me a single mathematician who currently disputes it. Not "Here's a bunch of assholes who got it wrong a decade ago and later probably apologized' but today.According to some of the articles linked in this thread, the people debating Savant are mathematicians and professors.
This is the crux and why it's debatable.No. A number of laymen have disputed it as far back as 1975, they were arguing with a professor at Berkley. Would you care to guess who was right? There is no one with a degree in stats, at any level, who disputes the answer.
Curiously, and this is new to me, Monty Hall apparently wrote to Selvin with his own explanation. Monty Hall got it right, saying something along the lines of "Eliminating a box gives the contestant the feeling that the odds are now 50/50, even though they remain the same for his first choice, 1/3." The fact that Monty Hall knew the right answer makes me happy.