Mos Eisley Cantina

[Darkened Angel]

I had to explain that Monty Hall Problem thing to a friend of mine in SL.

I feel like a math teacher right now.  

[ElladanKenet]

A sexy math teacher?  

[iKuumi]

Where?

 

[Missing00]

mrgreen  

[Nelowulf]

Isn't it ironic though that the dilemma is rather vague, because depending on the host's behavior, conditions, and extenuating circumstances, there are ways to work the problem into having the numbers result into always picking a goat or a car? While this psychological dilemma is considered conditional probability, I honestly have a feeling that it's lateral thinking with a dose of algebra and a touch of logical fallacy.

I.E. the option is only presented if the person picks the winning door, for example. Switching always loses. And this is still the same scenario as presented.  

[Missing00]

Nelowulf

Isn't it ironic though that the dilemma is rather vague, because depending on the host's behavior, conditions, and extenuating circumstances, there are ways to work the problem into having the numbers result into always picking a goat or a car? While this psychological dilemma is considered conditional probability, I honestly have a feeling that it's lateral thinking with a dose of algebra and a touch of logical fallacy.

I.E. the option is only presented if the person picks the winning door, for example. Switching always loses. And this is still the same scenario as presented.

at the beginning the person has a 66% chance of picking a goat and a 33% chance of picking a car so you would be more likely to pick a goat at the beginning and then switching to a car than picking a car and then switching to a goat.  

[Darkened Angel]

It's easier to explain the concept with a larger number.

For example, there's a lottery with exactly 1,000,000 combinations of numbers, and only 1 of those combinations can win.

By randomly picking a combination, you have a literal 1 in a million chance of winning.

Now, all combinations except the one you picked and 1 other combination are revealed to be non-winners. You are then given the option to switch to that 1 remaining combination that you didn't pick.

It appears to be a 50/50 chance, but this is a logical fallacy.

The one you picked was entirely random outta a 1 in a million chance, so if you stay with that initial choice, you still have those exact same odds of winning.

However, if you switch to the other remaining number, yours odds of winning are 999,999 out of a million.

The 3 door scenario is the same deal, but the odds are 33% and 66% because the odds of winning by switching increase with the more options there are.

To sum it up: The odds of winning by staying with your choice are always only as good as they were at the very beginning. Your odds increase by switching, so that's always the best option. The exception is when you actually land that smaller chance and actually picked the winner right off, but you never know that until it's over, so it's just a safer bet to always switch.  

[Nelowulf]

@ missing: Doi, but depending on the wording of the scenario, it can change drastically depending on the details that are being missed.


@ Both: This math problem actually does not work with only 2 doors... it must have 3+ for the math to work. But consider the following.

You pick one door.
The host picks a goat.
He only present the option to switch if you pick a goat door.
Your odds of being a winner: 100%

Same damn scenario, but we've explained the conditions better. Hence why conditional probability is little more than lateral thinking. Also note, that depending on which door you choose, the odds of success also change. If you pick door 1 or 3, instead of 2, your ability to "switch" and "win" might actually alter your probability of winning based upon the second decision. It only /seems/ like you'll win more, it doesn't change the odds at all.  

[Darkened Angel]

Of course it doesn't work with a choice of 2, because then that's a pure 50/50 chance.

But this all assumes it's a fair play to begin with. There could always been cons that will shift things around based on your decisions behind the scenes if nobody is able to see back there, ensuring you never get the big prize.

There was an actual case of rigged contests, one in particular being a scratch-off deal. You get trivia questions and scratch-off 1 of multiple answers to each. If you luck out and only scratch-off the right ones, you win. However, it turned out that for like the last question, none of the answers were right, so no matter what you scratched-off, you couldn't win.  

[Sol Walker]

I prefer Monty Python.  

[Missing00]

good morning everyone  

[Nelowulf]

GOOOOOOOOOD MORNING VIETNAAAAM!  

[Johnny Malone]

Good Evening, Guild.  

[ElladanKenet]

Good morning, Vietnam... I think  

[Darkened Angel]

* shoots all the Charlies *

That's from Gump along with this message, " That's for Bubba, you Commie bastards. "