Sheep or a Car

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: Malak
The reasoning behind the explanation is stupid and I will continue to dispute it. You are left with only 2 choices, the third choice is now moot and cannot be even considered in your decision. It is a 50/50 chance and there is no reason to switch nor to not switch. It comes down to chance. You have zero advantage.

Wow. You need your head examined. Go and read the article again. And again and again and again until your understand it.

Wait, you're a Christian right? Hhmm, explains a lot.

This is not the first time it has been brought up and I will despute it regadless of any article. You are given a choice between 2 doors. The third door is not a choice and whatever it reveals only means that your chances are either 50/50 or none at all. The reasoning is completely wrong. If this so-called genius cares to argue it with me, he/she can try. I will bury her/him.

But in the explanation it pays to swtich 2/3 of the time. and the trials the schools have run have shown that it pays to switch

Ok let me try to explain this in a manner that makes sense.

If your first choice is a 33% chance to be correct, this applies to each door. Once one of the doors is revealed, this leaves you with only 2 choices, a 50% chance to be correct. Saying your first choice was 33% and second choice is 50% is not a comparison you can use. The variables have changed. Both doors now have a 50% chance of being correct, the door you originally chose does not maintain it's 33% chance of being right since you can choose again but your choices are limited to only 2 doors. At this point, given that the door revealed was not the car, the third door being revealed is completely moot. It is a distraction, ignore it. There are only 2 doors, one goat and one car. You have a 50% chance of being correct, even if you don't switch. In fact, not switching is making a choice, since you have the option to switch. So you are actually choosing the same door again, with new odds.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: Malak
The reasoning behind the explanation is stupid and I will continue to dispute it. You are left with only 2 choices, the third choice is now moot and cannot be even considered in your decision. It is a 50/50 chance and there is no reason to switch nor to not switch. It comes down to chance. You have zero advantage.

Wow. You need your head examined. Go and read the article again. And again and again and again until your understand it.

Wait, you're a Christian right? Hhmm, explains a lot.

This is not the first time it has been brought up and I will despute it regadless of any article. You are given a choice between 2 doors. The third door is not a choice and whatever it reveals only means that your chances are either 50/50 or none at all. The reasoning is completely wrong. If this so-called genius cares to argue it with me, he/she can try. I will bury her/him.

But in the explanation it pays to swtich 2/3 of the time. and the trials the schools have run have shown that it pays to switch

Ok let me try to explain this in a manner that makes sense.

If your first choice is a 33% chance to be correct, this applies to each door. Once one of the doors is revealed, this leaves you with only 2 choices, a 50% chance to be correct. Saying your first choice was 33% and second choice is 50% is not a comparison you can use. The variables have changed. Both doors now have a 50% chance of being correct, the door you originally chose does not maintain it's 33% chance of being right since you can choose again but your choices are limited to only 2 doors. At this point, given that the door revealed was not the car, the third door being revealed is completely moot. It is a distraction, ignore it. There are only 2 doors, one goat and one car. You have a 50% chance of being correct, even if you don't switch. In fact, not switching is making a choice, since you have the option to switch. So you are actually choosing the same door again, with new odds.

Think about it this way. Under your assumption, it does not pay to take ANY action since you say the door in front of you now has a 50/50 chance of having a car there. So under your assumption, you should be winning 50% of the time. OK. So if we are to run the game multiple times, and you always stick with choice 1, arey ou saying you'll win 1/2 the time or would you acutally win 1/3 of the time?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Malak
If this so-called genius cares to argue it with me, he/she can try. I will bury her/him.

Ahh. Pride is my favorite sin. :evil:

ZV

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Think about it this way. Under your assumption, it does not pay to take ANY action since you say the door in front of you now has a 50/50 chance of having a car there. So under your assumption, you should be winning 50% of the time. OK. So if we are to run the game multiple times, and you always stick with choice 1, arey ou saying you'll win 1/2 the time or would you acutally win 1/3 of the time?

Statistics are theoretical. Even with a theoretical 50% chance of winning, you can still lose 100% of the time given only a limited number of chances.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Malak
If this so-called genius cares to argue it with me, he/she can try. I will bury her/him.

Ahh. Pride is my favorite sin. :evil:

ZV

While often lacking in wisdom and posting pretty stupid things, according to IQ tests I am a genius. So forgive me for doubting other so-called geniuses when I doubt myself sometimes.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Think about it this way. Under your assumption, it does not pay to take ANY action since you say the door in front of you now has a 50/50 chance of having a car there. So under your assumption, you should be winning 50% of the time. OK. So if we are to run the game multiple times, and you always stick with choice 1, arey ou saying you'll win 1/2 the time or would you acutally win 1/3 of the time?

Statistics are theoretical. Even with a theoretical 50% chance of winning, you can still lose 100% of the time given only a limited number of chances.

this whole thing is theoritical. we're trying to maximize the PROBABILITY of winning. no one is guarateeing anything. and you haven't really refuted what I said. so would you theoritically win 50% of the time or win 33% of the time? theortically

 

[FilmCamera]

All probabilities are 50%. Either an event will happen, or it won't. You will either win, or you will not.

 

[TheChort]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Think about it this way. Under your assumption, it does not pay to take ANY action since you say the door in front of you now has a 50/50 chance of having a car there. So under your assumption, you should be winning 50% of the time. OK. So if we are to run the game multiple times, and you always stick with choice 1, arey ou saying you'll win 1/2 the time or would you acutally win 1/3 of the time?

Statistics are theoretical. Even with a theoretical 50% chance of winning, you can still lose 100% of the time given only a limited number of chances.

answer the question:
Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?
assuming the conditions that are being discussed, and you have 1 chance, would you switch or not?

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Think about it this way. Under your assumption, it does not pay to take ANY action since you say the door in front of you now has a 50/50 chance of having a car there. So under your assumption, you should be winning 50% of the time. OK. So if we are to run the game multiple times, and you always stick with choice 1, arey ou saying you'll win 1/2 the time or would you acutally win 1/3 of the time?

Statistics are theoretical. Even with a theoretical 50% chance of winning, you can still lose 100% of the time given only a limited number of chances.

this whole thing is theoritical. we're trying to maximize the PROBABILITY of winning. no one is guarateeing anything. and you haven't really refuted what I said. so would you theoritically win 50% of the time or win 33% of the time? theortically

Theoretically you will win 50% of the time, regardless of your first or second choice, if the third door always reveals a goat. You always had a 50% chance of winning in this scenario. I would assume 100% of the time the gamehost would reveal one of the goats to try to throw you off, it heightens the excitement of the moment. So in the end, you really always had a 50% chance of winning.

 

[TheChort]

Originally posted by: FilmCamera
All probabilities are 50%. Either an event will happen, or it won't. You will either win, or you will not.

you're a philosophy major aren't you

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: TheChort

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Think about it this way. Under your assumption, it does not pay to take ANY action since you say the door in front of you now has a 50/50 chance of having a car there. So under your assumption, you should be winning 50% of the time. OK. So if we are to run the game multiple times, and you always stick with choice 1, arey ou saying you'll win 1/2 the time or would you acutally win 1/3 of the time?

Statistics are theoretical. Even with a theoretical 50% chance of winning, you can still lose 100% of the time given only a limited number of chances.

answer the question:
Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?
assuming the conditions that are being discussed, and you have 1 chance, would you switch or not?

As I said previously, there is no advantage or disadvantage for switching. It's just a choice. You always have the same chance of winning.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Think about it this way. Under your assumption, it does not pay to take ANY action since you say the door in front of you now has a 50/50 chance of having a car there. So under your assumption, you should be winning 50% of the time. OK. So if we are to run the game multiple times, and you always stick with choice 1, arey ou saying you'll win 1/2 the time or would you acutally win 1/3 of the time?

Statistics are theoretical. Even with a theoretical 50% chance of winning, you can still lose 100% of the time given only a limited number of chances.

this whole thing is theoritical. we're trying to maximize the PROBABILITY of winning. no one is guarateeing anything. and you haven't really refuted what I said. so would you theoritically win 50% of the time or win 33% of the time? theortically

Theoretically you will win 50% of the time, regardless of your first or second choice, if the third door always reveals a goat. You always had a 50% chance of winning in this scenario. I would assume 100% of the time the gamehost would reveal one of the goats to try to throw you off, it heightens the excitement of the moment. So in the end, you really always had a 50% chance of winning.

so what you're saying is. if i had 3 doors. i always pick #1. I then close my eyes and refuse to listen to what the game host is telling me and showing a door w/ a goat. that i will win 50% of the time?

basically what you're saying is, among 3 chances, randomly picking one and sticking to that answer will net me a win 50% of the time?

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Malak
If this so-called genius cares to argue it with me, he/she can try. I will bury her/him.

Ahh. Pride is my favorite sin. :evil:

ZV

While often lacking in wisdom and posting pretty stupid things, according to IQ tests I am a genius. So forgive me for doubting other so-called geniuses when I doubt myself sometimes.

Okay genuis, read my above post and tell me where my reasoning went wrong. I know that you are wrong, but you are too ignorant to try to understand. Or too stupid.

 

[FilmCamera]

Originally posted by: TheChort

Originally posted by: FilmCamera
All probabilities are 50%. Either an event will happen, or it won't. You will either win, or you will not.

you're a philosophy major aren't you

No, I'm not. But it interests me.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Think about it this way. Under your assumption, it does not pay to take ANY action since you say the door in front of you now has a 50/50 chance of having a car there. So under your assumption, you should be winning 50% of the time. OK. So if we are to run the game multiple times, and you always stick with choice 1, arey ou saying you'll win 1/2 the time or would you acutally win 1/3 of the time?

Statistics are theoretical. Even with a theoretical 50% chance of winning, you can still lose 100% of the time given only a limited number of chances.

this whole thing is theoritical. we're trying to maximize the PROBABILITY of winning. no one is guarateeing anything. and you haven't really refuted what I said. so would you theoritically win 50% of the time or win 33% of the time? theortically

Theoretically you will win 50% of the time, regardless of your first or second choice, if the third door always reveals a goat. You always had a 50% chance of winning in this scenario. I would assume 100% of the time the gamehost would reveal one of the goats to try to throw you off, it heightens the excitement of the moment. So in the end, you really always had a 50% chance of winning.

so what you're saying is. if i had 3 doors. i always pick #1. I then close my eyes and refuse to listen to what the game host is telling me and showing a door w/ a goat. that i will win 50% of the time?

The third door is just a scare tactic. You only have 2 choices. You either pick a goat or you pick a car. Or in the case of UHF, it's a fish or an empty box.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Think about it this way. Under your assumption, it does not pay to take ANY action since you say the door in front of you now has a 50/50 chance of having a car there. So under your assumption, you should be winning 50% of the time. OK. So if we are to run the game multiple times, and you always stick with choice 1, arey ou saying you'll win 1/2 the time or would you acutally win 1/3 of the time?

Statistics are theoretical. Even with a theoretical 50% chance of winning, you can still lose 100% of the time given only a limited number of chances.

this whole thing is theoritical. we're trying to maximize the PROBABILITY of winning. no one is guarateeing anything. and you haven't really refuted what I said. so would you theoritically win 50% of the time or win 33% of the time? theortically

Theoretically you will win 50% of the time, regardless of your first or second choice, if the third door always reveals a goat. You always had a 50% chance of winning in this scenario. I would assume 100% of the time the gamehost would reveal one of the goats to try to throw you off, it heightens the excitement of the moment. So in the end, you really always had a 50% chance of winning.

Your stupidity is giving me a headache. Please read the following sentences. When you make your initial choice, you are splitting the original 3 doors into 2 groups, one with 1/3 chance of finding a car and one with 2/3 chance of finding a car. You can now choose from either of those two groups, and each group only has one available door.
What the fvck are you not getting about this?

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Think about it this way. Under your assumption, it does not pay to take ANY action since you say the door in front of you now has a 50/50 chance of having a car there. So under your assumption, you should be winning 50% of the time. OK. So if we are to run the game multiple times, and you always stick with choice 1, arey ou saying you'll win 1/2 the time or would you acutally win 1/3 of the time?

Statistics are theoretical. Even with a theoretical 50% chance of winning, you can still lose 100% of the time given only a limited number of chances.

this whole thing is theoritical. we're trying to maximize the PROBABILITY of winning. no one is guarateeing anything. and you haven't really refuted what I said. so would you theoritically win 50% of the time or win 33% of the time? theortically

Theoretically you will win 50% of the time, regardless of your first or second choice, if the third door always reveals a goat. You always had a 50% chance of winning in this scenario. I would assume 100% of the time the gamehost would reveal one of the goats to try to throw you off, it heightens the excitement of the moment. So in the end, you really always had a 50% chance of winning.

Your stupidity is giving me a headache. Please read the following sentences. When you make your initial choice, you are splitting the original 3 doors into 2 groups, one with 1/3 chance of finding a car and one with 2/3 chance of finding a car. You can now choose from either of those two groups, and each group only has one available door.
What the fvck are you not getting about this?

One door is always revealed and removed from the equation. Your choice is between 2 doors. Switching is not in your favor, nor disfavor. The initial odds are moot in the 2nd phase.

 

[FilmCamera]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Malak
If this so-called genius cares to argue it with me, he/she can try. I will bury her/him.

Ahh. Pride is my favorite sin. :evil:

ZV

While often lacking in wisdom and posting pretty stupid things, according to IQ tests I am a genius. So forgive me for doubting other so-called geniuses when I doubt myself sometimes.

No, you are not a genius. I don't care what score you got in the email SPAM.

Oh and I just did a random online IQ test...probably something like you did. I selected answers randomly. Here is what it said:

"You're exceptionally good at discovering quick solutions to problems, especially ones that involve math or logic. You're also resourceful and able to think on your feet."

So I'm awesome.

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Malak
If this so-called genius cares to argue it with me, he/she can try. I will bury her/him.

Ahh. Pride is my favorite sin. :evil:

ZV

While often lacking in wisdom and posting pretty stupid things, according to IQ tests I am a genius. So forgive me for doubting other so-called geniuses when I doubt myself sometimes.

Malak, take this win a grain of salt but it sounds as though you have no background in probability. You quite possibily could be a genius and get this wrong, given so many people in similar circumstances (PHDs and teachers and professors alike) who also got it wrong.

I think they key you are missing is the understanding that no matter what door you originally pick, the host will always subsequently open a door with a sheep in it. You know this going in. The host knows this going in. Hence, once your selection is made, your original odds of having picked the door with the car (1/3) remains the same even after the host opens the door with the sheep behind it. Odds can only change once additional information is gained-- in this case, no new information is gained since you knew going in that the host would open a door with a sheep behind it.

If the odds of your door having the car is 1/3, that means the odds the remaining door has the car must be 2/3.

The problem changes considerably if the host has no idea which door has the car behind it, and opens one of the two remaing doors at random.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Malak
If this so-called genius cares to argue it with me, he/she can try. I will bury her/him.

Ahh. Pride is my favorite sin. :evil:

ZV

While often lacking in wisdom and posting pretty stupid things, according to IQ tests I am a genius. So forgive me for doubting other so-called geniuses when I doubt myself sometimes.

No, you are not a genius. I don't care what score you got in the email SPAM.

Oh and I just did a random online IQ test...probably something like you did. I selected answers randomly. Here is what it said:

"You're exceptionally good at discovering quick solutions to problems, especially ones that involve math or logic. You're also resourceful and able to think on your feet."

So I'm awesome.

I took an official test

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: QED
If the odds of your door having the car is 1/3, that means the odds the remaining door has the car must be 2/3.

The problem changes considerably if the host has no idea which door has the car behind it, and opens one of the two remaing doors at random.

I am going to ponder on this and get back with you.

 

[FilmCamera]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Malak
If this so-called genius cares to argue it with me, he/she can try. I will bury her/him.

Ahh. Pride is my favorite sin. :evil:

ZV

While often lacking in wisdom and posting pretty stupid things, according to IQ tests I am a genius. So forgive me for doubting other so-called geniuses when I doubt myself sometimes.

No, you are not a genius. I don't care what score you got in the email SPAM.

Oh and I just did a random online IQ test...probably something like you did. I selected answers randomly. Here is what it said:

"You're exceptionally good at discovering quick solutions to problems, especially ones that involve math or logic. You're also resourceful and able to think on your feet."

So I'm awesome.

I took an official test

I think you accidentally wrote someone elses name at the top.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Think about it this way. Under your assumption, it does not pay to take ANY action since you say the door in front of you now has a 50/50 chance of having a car there. So under your assumption, you should be winning 50% of the time. OK. So if we are to run the game multiple times, and you always stick with choice 1, arey ou saying you'll win 1/2 the time or would you acutally win 1/3 of the time?

Statistics are theoretical. Even with a theoretical 50% chance of winning, you can still lose 100% of the time given only a limited number of chances.

this whole thing is theoritical. we're trying to maximize the PROBABILITY of winning. no one is guarateeing anything. and you haven't really refuted what I said. so would you theoritically win 50% of the time or win 33% of the time? theortically

Theoretically you will win 50% of the time, regardless of your first or second choice, if the third door always reveals a goat. You always had a 50% chance of winning in this scenario. I would assume 100% of the time the gamehost would reveal one of the goats to try to throw you off, it heightens the excitement of the moment. So in the end, you really always had a 50% chance of winning.

Your stupidity is giving me a headache. Please read the following sentences. When you make your initial choice, you are splitting the original 3 doors into 2 groups, one with 1/3 chance of finding a car and one with 2/3 chance of finding a car. You can now choose from either of those two groups, and each group only has one available door.
What the fvck are you not getting about this?

One door is always revealed and removed from the equation. Your choice is between 2 doors. Switching is not in your favor, nor disfavor. The initial odds are moot in the 2nd phase.

I'm done trying to explain this to you. You're ignorant, arrogant, stupid and the worst thing is you think you're smart. You are too stupid to understand something that has been explained in plain English. I have come across paper weights with more brain power than you. Good day sir.

Edit - as a matter of interest, what do you think of the 0.999...=1 discussion, and do you think the plane takes off?

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
I'm done trying to explain this to you. You're ignorant, arrogant, stupid and the worst thing is you think you're smart. You are too stupid to understand something that has been explained in plain English. I have come across paper weights with more brain power than you. Good day sir.

I don't know why you have to continue to insult me, it doesn't help your arguement any. Furthermore I should like to refer to the part in the article where people much smarter than you or I disputed this as well.

 

[FilmCamera]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
I'm done trying to explain this to you. You're ignorant, arrogant, stupid and the worst thing is you think you're smart. You are too stupid to understand something that has been explained in plain English. I have come across paper weights with more brain power than you. Good day sir.

I don't know why you have to continue to insult me, it doesn't help your arguement any. Furthermore I should like to refer to the part in the article where people much smarter than you or I disputed this as well.

They must have taken the same IQ test as you.