LOL

Monty Hall problem

It's kinda stupid

>Logic=FUCKING PROBABILITY
I think you're the one that needs to fuck off to Veeky Forums, pronto.

So you are one of the guys that used intuition instead of logic?

what the fuck are you guys whining about? wikipedia the monty hall problem right now if you dont think it isnt a question of probability

So is 3/3 the same as 1 or nah?

I do think that it isn't a question of probability, thanks for agreeing

you know what i meant, you ass

This problem is actually a good litmus test for scientism and reductivist thinking

>Oh, computer program shows it's OK? I guess that's that then!!
^--- stunted consciousness that doesn't understand how actual knowledge is constituted, only wants an instrumental answer to "what" rather than "how"/"why"

this paradox is the biggest hoax ever.

1/3 is 1/3 and it's the same for each door.

fucking pseudo science

what if i understand, believe and know that switching is to my advantage, but i nevertheless stay, reasoning that while statistical projections of the probability of my victory indicate i will "probably" win if i switch, i have already crossed the threshold of the eventual arrangement of the prizes behind the doors before i am even shown them? in other words, the 3 possible arrangements are already "condensed" into one, and my switching or staying cannot possibly affect the actual arrangement, despite the respective advantage or disadvantage implied at the level of the virtual multiplicity of unrealized prize arrangements..

please put more effort into your next bait
then you're dumb

its what happens when they reveal the goat though

Please only reply to this post with the correct answer, so that this can be settled once and for all.

the goat is 100% behind the goat door, allowing for margin of error ~0.01%

>Pigeons repeatedly exposed to the problem show that they rapidly learn always to switch, unlike humans.

all of the scientistic explanations of why it's better to switch are based on multiple instances of the problem. but as a consciousness i will only every be exposed to this situation once. it is a unique event divorced from probability on the basis of its singularity. nor should it be protested, no doubt with an air of ad hominem, that i am "intuiting" that the "probability is equal." i know full well that it isn't, just as i know that the prizes already are where they will be whether or not i switch.

the only correct answer, really, is to flip a coin to decide if you switch or not, thereby removing the twin subjective quandaries of scientism-switching on the one hand, and intuition/virtuality-staying on the other.

those are some big words for you, retard.

on the contrary, the retard is you, for thinking that choosing the statistically "more likely" win-option in anyway affects the placement of the cars and goats.

The Monty Hall problem is "boring" in the sense that everyone can understand the scenario and everyone, upon some explanation and then thinking, can understand the solution.

The actual problems with probability are the meta-matematical ones, the ones asking how to formalize the notion of propability in the first place, frequentism vs.

Or problems where the apriori distributions are unclear.
Or stuff like

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Beauty_problem

>on the contrary, the retard is you, for thinking that they are thinking that choosing the statistically "more likely" win-option in anyway affects the placement of the cars and goats

that's not supposed to be greentext

>calling me a retard
>>can't not green text when trying to touché me

STEM BTFO once again

>be wrong
>get someone to argue against you poorlu
>you're now right

But it is probability problem. Maybe you guys are so far up your asses everything is either logic or metaphysics to you, but it is a probability problem if you believe it or not.

it really is that easy.

>positivism

>irrelevant name drops

A good way to think about the logic behind it:
If there were 50 doors and you pick one, then 48 are down empty, leaving yours and one other, it makes sense that you'd switch doors. The same applies for just 3 doors.

why don't the odds improve for your door once one is opened?

the hosts knows where the price is and always opens a goat door

>it makes sense that you'd switch doors
uh why?

You pick one of fifty doors and there's one remaining other than your choice then out only makes sense that you are better off with the last closed one

what if the prize is behind my door?

It's possible and would happen about one in every fifty times, but is a less likely and less attractive option

>winning the prize is a less attractive option

It's because winning is a more attractive option that you would switch since switching statistically makes you more likely for a prize

the prize will be in the same spot either way, tho

You pick one and there's only a 1/3 chance you picked the car. There's a 2/3 chance you picked a goat, so it's more likely if you switch you'll get the car after it's been narrowed down by a goat being shown.

Why it's counterintuitive is because we don't feel that mere knowledge can change what should be luck or probability or whatever.

It's a logic problem because you calculate the most rational way to solve a problem, a situation in which there is a gap of knowledge and you need to exert a effort to resolve it. As opposed to simply calculating the possibilities and the sample space conformed in the problem. Also, this is a subject of study in several different degrees in subjects related to logic along with basic logic stuff as modus ponens, and with how framing and emotional schemes affects the capacity of people to succesfully resolve logical problems and syllogisms. I fail to see in what way it is more related to probability than logic

WE HAVE A 1000 DOORS, YOU SELECT DOOR NUMBER 1

MONTY PROCEEDS TO SHOW GOATS IN EVERY SINGLE OF THE 1000 DOORS EXCEPT DOOR 856

JESUS I FUCKING WONDER WHERE THIS CAR IS!!

but there are 3 doors, not 1000

I don't really get it, I just pretend I get it and move on

right, but it does illustrate the point.

Think of it it this way: Behind door 1 is the car (C), behind door 2 is a goat (G), behind door 3 is a goat, like this:

1 2 3
C G G

Let's say your strategy is to always switch doors. There are three possible scenarios:

Scenario A: You pick door 1 first. Monty opens door 2 (or 3, doesn't matter), revealing a goat. You switch to door 3. You lose

Scenario B: You pick door 2. Monty opens door 3, revealing a goat. You switch to door 1 and you win the car

Scenario C: You pick door 3. Monty opens door 2 revealing a goat. You switch to door 1, and you win the car.

So if your strategy is to switch no matter what, then you win in two of the three possible scenarios.

The point is that it is kind of a trick. Monty does not just randomly open one of the remaining doors. He always opens one with a goat behind it.

Another way to look at it is that there is only one of the three scenarios in which you will lose.

So in the 1000 door example your odds are much better. With the switching strategy you will win 999 out of 1000 times. But it still works the same way with 3 doors, just that you now win 2 out of 3 times.

This is the first time an user has clearly explained it. Thank you. I no longer feel really stupid about math, just casually dumb.

The part of this that is at all Veeky Forums-related, which I'm frankly shocked that no one here has thought to bring up, is the postmodern infusion of the Monty Hall Problem with our collective discourse. Aren't we to the point in societal progress where every elementary schooler is shown this problem on their teacher's sub-day? Then consider Monty "The Deal Man" Hall's competing motivations: 1) trick you into picking the goat to save the TV show money, and 2) get you to guess the correct door with the car to make for a more crowd-pleasing finale. In a double-blind reveal it may be true that you have a higher chance of winning by switching doors, but surely the show producers must know that you are more likely to switch.

Fuck all of your objective probability theory, it's unnuanced to the point of being unapplicable. I'm even a STEMlord and I see this.

>In a double-blind reveal it may be true that you have a higher chance of winning by switching doors, but surely the show producers must know that you are more likely to switch.
The problem states that the host *always* offers the switch.

Sure, that's written into the problem. But it doesn't state which door the host chooses to reveal before offering the switch.

Yes it does.

rekt

He's going to offer a door you haven't chosen that doesn't have the price. Are you dense?

There are 2 of those doors. Sorry for trying to turn a problem that literally everyone in the western hemisphere has understood since grade school into something a little more interesting.

>There are 2 of those doors.
If you picked correctly yes, but what would it matter which goat he shows?