Oups! My bad for typing it in a hurry. I edited the original post to put the correct 1.25 X.First of all:
.5(2X + .5X) != 1.5X
You are unto something here: the idea that things go wrong because X does not represent the same thing in all its instances. Yet it does not fully elucidates the paradox. Anyway, for more:Two envelopes problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaSecond, please stop abusing that poor defenseless X.
Given:
2X = $10000
and:
.5X = $5000
solve for X...
Whoops again.
A more correct way of fixing the two problems I pointed out would be to change the .5X term to something sane, namely X. So now that you have an internally consistent definition of wtf X actually is, you have a choice between X and 2X dollars, with an average of 1.5X, and just as much motivation to switch as to say "meh, fuck it."I edited the original post to put the correct 1.25 X.
I don't get the trick here but I'll respond humbly with my response at first glance.I wonder how many pages we would have if the problem was an actual paradox that has yet to be convincingly solved. Like:
There are two indistinguishable envelopes. Both contain money. One has twice as much as the other. You can pick an envelope and keep its content. You pick one, but before opening it you wonder... should you open this one or switch? If X is the amount of money in your envelope, the other contains 2X or X/2 with equal odds, so the expected result of a switch is 1.25X: so you switch. But then you start to wonder... you can make the exact same reasoning with this new envelope and therefor find that the best course of action is to switch again... and again... and again. What went wrong?
The wikipedia page mentions this, but then it takes it a step further: you open the envelope you picked and it contains... say... $100. So now you know the other envelopes contains $50 or $200 so switching is risking losing $50 for a chance at winning $100, a deal that seems difficult to rationally refuse. We are back to the previous logic, but without the shady use of X. And the paradox is back, because there is no scenario where opening the envelope makes you discover a sum that does not make you want to switch... so why open the envelope in the first place?The expected result from envelopes 1 and 2 would be: P(A) * A + P(B) * B = 150.
Because the expected results from each envelope are the same, switching or not switching would give the same result.
Wait are there three envelopes with 50, 100 and 200? Or are there two envelopes with 100 and 200?The wikipedia page mentions this, but then it takes it a step further: you open the envelope you picked and it contains... say... $100. So now you know the other envelopes contains $50 or $200 so switching is risking losing $50 for a chance at winning $100, a deal that seems difficult to rationally refuse. We are back to the previous logic, but without the shady use of X. And the paradox is back, because there is no scenario where opening the envelope makes you discover a sum that does not make you want to switch... so why open the envelope in the first place?
I find Iannis' "it's not the right tool set for the problem at hand" rebuttal interesting, but also somewhat problematic: what are the criteria to determine when statistical tools are no longer effective? We have here a choice, partial information, numbers... so it's less clear than with colored ribbons.
Ok, I still contend that my above answer is correct. The value of each envelope is the same (3/2X, so if X=$100 each envelope contains a green ribbon with $150), so it makes no sense to switch.There are two envelopes but you only know one has twice the amount of the other.
I've skimmed it, and you've repeatedly claimed that the second choice is completely independent of the first. That's false. Repeatedly claiming otherwise doesn't change that. But it's cool bro, we all know you're trolling. Carry on.I already did like 50x times in this thread.
Eomer should reread the thread.
You are adding a really specific addition to the problem that is in no way mentioned or implied.Of course it does. He could simply only ever reveal a crap door and give the switch option to the people that picked the car, causing switching to lose every time.
In the OP, its only stated that the host revealed a shit prize in that one instance. It does not say he gave that option to everyone. The host could be trying to get you to lose.
Switching is only to your advantage if the host has no free will, and is forced to always reveal a booby prize and give the option to switch to every contestant.
Yeah, I don't quite get it. Just because there is a wikipedia page about it doesn't mean it doesn't arise from improper starting assumptions. You can't just set up a problem where x equals two different things and claim paradox when the formula doesn't resolve.I don't get the trick here but I'll respond humbly with my response at first glance.
If A=100
and B=200
If P(A)=0.5
and P(B)=0.5
The expected result from envelopes 1 and 2 would be: P(A) * A + P(B) * B = 150.
Oh hang on, now you've confused me again. Maybe there is more to this than I thought.The wikipedia page mentions this, but then it takes it a step further: you open the envelope you picked and it contains... say... $100. So now you know the other envelopes contains $50 or $200 so switching is risking losing $50 for a chance at winning $100, a deal that seems difficult to rationally refuse. We are back to the previous logic, but without the shady use of X. And the paradox is back, because there is no scenario where opening the envelope makes you discover a sum that does not make you want to switch... so why open the envelope in the first place?
Finally, a proper solution!All of these cars, goats, and envelops filled with cash. At this point, mathematically speaking, I think it's reasonable to rob the guy.
Reasonably.
This thread does have a proper paradox that I don't think anyone answered.I wonder how many pages we would have if the problem was an actual paradox that has yet to be convincingly solved. Like:
Hehe that's a good question. I didn't see it before. I'll have to think about it.This thread does have a proper paradox that I don't think anyone answered.
You have 100 doors, 1 prize, a host and 2 contestants. Each contestant picks a door, and the host opens up 98 doors to reveal the prize is not behind any of them. Will both contestant increase their odds of winning the prize by switching?