|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Three Curtains | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rstrats Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 138 Joined: |
You are a contestant on a game show. There are three curtains. Behind one of the curtains is a new car. You are asked to choose one of the curtains. Lets say that you choose curtain #1. The host of the show - who knows where the car is so as not to end the game prematurely - opens curtain #3 and of course there is no car behind it. The host now gives you a choice. You can stay with curtain #1 or you can change your choice to curtain #2. The question now is: would it be to your advantage to stay with curtain #1, or would it be to your advantage to change to curtain #2 or would there be no advantage either way?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 821 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
Rstrats, this is simply the Monty Hall problem and your odds of winning increase from 1 in 3 to 1 in 2 if you switch, so the answer is it's to your advantage to switch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rstrats Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 138 Joined: |
Anyone disagree with kjsimons?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I never really got this when I heard about it.
Once the 3rd option is removed and you have the chance to change it becomes 1 in 2 regardless of whether you change your decision because you are making a decision not to change in the same way the you would need to make a decision to change. It's just one more way for God to limit our free will The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
That car ain't gonna move. My original wild guess is as good as any.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
There is a 1/3 chance you picked the right answer.
There is a 2/3 chance you picked the wrong answer. Therefore there is a 2/3 chance the car is behind #2 OR #3 Once you are given the additional information it is not behind #3 the state of affairs remains There is a 1/3 chance you picked the right answer and 2/3 chance you picked the wrong answer. It is not #3, therefore there is a 2/3 probability it is behind #2 and a 1/3 probability of being behind #1. Therefore, switching doubles your chances of winning a car to 2 in 3. It is functionally equivalent to being given the choice: You can either open one curtain or two, which do you choose?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
I agree that it does not matter if one changes their mind. The host is always gonna eliminate the third option.
When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meannothing more nor less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
There is a 1/3 chance you picked the right answer and 2/3 chance you picked the wrong answer. It is not #3, therefore there is a 2/3 probability it is behind #2 and a 1/3 probability of being behind #1. I don't see the math. Once 3 is eliminated, you have a 1 in 2 chance period. The original math no longer applies to the current reality.When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meannothing more nor less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3385 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
I'm not sure, but I bet Michael Larson could have figured it out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I don't see the math. Once 3 is eliminated, you have a 1 in 2 chance period. The original math no longer applies to the current reality. I'll show you. We'll do every combo possible, which all occur with equal frequency. You pick 1 every time and you stick.
Alternatively, always switching
As I said, you are essentially being given the choice of picking 1 OR picking 2 AND 3. The puzzle is just given window dressing designed to bamboozle the way the human mind naturally estimates probability. Basically you think that because there are two possibilities that means they must be equiprobable, but this assumption is not always true, such as in this case where the host knows which curtain the car is behind and simply reveals the one option you didn't pick that is a loser. In the case where the host always reveals 3 when you always pick 1, then of course you should only switch 1/3 of the time, otherwise it doesn't matter. This is the illustration I like to use to demonstrate how professional poker players are able to make a living - and how the people they make money off are just as confident in their estimations of probability as their sharks. You've probably seen people who think the probability of God existing is 50% because he either does or he doesn't. But then, the chances of winning the lottery are the same by the same reasoning. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I don't see the math. Once 3 is eliminated, you have a 1 in 2 chance period. The original math no longer applies to the current reality. You had a one in three chance of picking the right curtain. Once one curtain has been drawn aside, the chance that you originally picked the right curtain is still one in three. Here's an argument many people find convincing. Suppose there were a hundred curtains. You pick one, and then the game show host draws back 98 of them. Which is more likely, that you picked the right curtain first off, or that you picked the wrong one, and that therefore the one remaining curtain, the one that the host chose not to draw back, conceals the prize? With three curtains, the reasoning is just the same, only with fewer curtains.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member (Idle past 456 days) Posts: 428 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
It doesn't seem like this is a probability question so much as it is about the rules that govern the game show host. If he knows where the car is, and also gets to choose which curtain to open, then there is the potential that he is communicating with you. So, interesting question about game show tactics, but not about probability.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Capt Stormfield writes:
Indeed, the host doesn't care whether you win or not. He's just interested in showing off the car for the dealer who sponsors the show. If he doesn't give it to you, he'll give it to somebody else tomorrow. His goal is to keep the audience watching by keeping up the suspense. He has to have winners to keep the suckers coming in.
So, interesting question about game show tactics, but not about probability.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member (Idle past 456 days) Posts: 428 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
With three curtains, the reasoning is just the same... And equally flawed. The original question is meaningless unless we know the structure of the game. If the host has knowledge, and gets to use it in the choice of which unchosen curtains are opened, then the question is just about Monte Hall's likely behavior, not about probability.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It doesn't seem like this is a probability question so much as it is about the rules that govern the game show host. Well its the rules that govern the game show host are what determines the probabilities. If it helps, replace the host with a computer program that always picks curtain which does not have a car behind it and was not the one you picked.
If he knows where the car is, and also gets to choose which curtain to open, then there is the potential that he is communicating with you. The OP describes the scenario as you hypothetically perceive it. If you detect some communication, tell me - which curtain is the car behind? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024