Can someone please explain this shit to me?

Can someone please explain this shit to me?

Other urls found in this thread:

rosettacode.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

If you are this retarded just construct the sample space and see for yourself.

it is a retarded arbitrary logic that has no real application in real life just like most of mathematics and physics.

I don't care what idiots say, you don't improve your chances by switching your choice. Yes, technically your 1/3rd chance is now 1/2 if you pick again, but it doesn't fucking matter since the chance of a goat or a car is 50/50

Samporu Supaisu

t. 2.0 GPA civil engineer

the first time you pick one out of three. The second time you pick one out of two.

>1/3rd chance is now 1/2 if you pick again
but the point of it is that it's actually 2/3...
fuck you got me

>Many readers of vos Savant's column refused to believe switching is beneficial despite her explanation. After the problem appeared in Parade, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine, most of them claiming vos Savant was wrong (Tierney 1991). Even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still do not accept that switching is the best strategy (vos Savant 1991a). Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation demonstrating the predicted result (Vazsonyi 1999).

To be fair, you have to be skeptical when a roastie is the one saying it.

She is absolute god desu. I wonder what it's like to be a super-IQ god literally schooling phd plebs

Your first pick has a chance of being right 1 of every 3 times. Thus whatever you picked at first, it's most likely wrong.

Take away another wrong door, and now the remaining door has one in half chance of being the good one.

So the question is, was your first choice the good one? Or would you rather try again?

this.

Philosophy major here to explain this to you brainlets.

The factor you aren't considering is that the host always picks a door with a goat on purpose. If the car is behind door 1, he will open 2 or 3. If it's behind 2, he will open 1 or 3, and so on. Therefore, when you pick 1 and he opens 3, which has a goat, and he offers the chance for you to switch your choice, considering all the possibilities, you're better off accepting the offer.

It goes like this. Pick door 1 and assume he either opens that one or another with a goat, and calculate if it would pay to switch your final answer or not. You'll find that you're 2/3 times more likely to get the car if you switch your final answer.

1 2 3 (declining to switch)
G C G lose
C G G win
G G C lose

1 2 3 (accepting to switch)
G G C win
G C G win
C G G lost

It really comes down to "Do you understand what conditional probability is?" or "Do you know how probability changes when new information is presented?".

There are two important facts given from the door reveal:
1) The probability of the car being behind door 3 has changed, once you know it is not there
2) You know that the host couldn't reveal the car OR the door you decided on

Step by step:
>No information about the probability weighting for 3 doors, so we assume the weighting is equal like a fair die, 1/3 probability of getting the car.
>Door 3 is revealed to have goat
>Probability of car behind door 3 is now 0, but probabilities need to sum to 1, need to update
>Game show host could not reveal the door you chose AND he had to reveal a goat.
>Keeping all of this in mind we can rebuild our probability space
>From this first selection you picked either a car, goat A, or goat B
>If you picked the car, the host reveals one of the goats, you switch to the other goat and lose
>If you picked goat A, the host HAS TO reveal goat B, you switch, you get the car, you win
>If you picked goat B, the host HAS TO reveal goat A, you switch, you get the car, you win
>3 possibly scenarios with switching, 2 out of 3 get you the car. Hence, 2/3 chance of car.
>It should be easy to see by negating the switching statement in the above three scenarios, you'll end up with the opposite outcomes, leaving a 1/3 chance of getting the car when not switching

> Pick door 1 and assume he either opens that one or another with a goat, and calculate if it would pay to switch your final answer or not. You'll find that you're 2/3 times more likely to get the car if you switch your final answer.

No, you're not. The chance of getting a car or a goat is 50/50 because you have NO information about what's behind those doors.
>If you picked the car, the host reveals one of the goats, you switch to the other goat and lose
>If you picked goat A, the host HAS TO reveal goat B, you switch, you get the car, you win
Yeah but you don't know which door you picked. Hence the chance is still 50/50.

>you don't know which door you picked
We're not considering this problem in the case of dementia patients or Guy Pearce.

I mean you don't know what's behind the door you picked, so it doesn't matter than Monty Hall shows you a goat. You still have a perfect 50-50 chance irrelevant of door switching meme shit

It makes a little more sense if you think about it with more doors. If you had 10 doors to choose from, and he revealed 8, would you still want to keep your door even though there was originally a 1/10 chance of being correct? 1000 doors? If you just look at the end, it's 50/50, but taken with additional context, it makes more sense to switch.

fuck this shit

imagine there's a gorillion doors
you pick one
host opens gorillion-2 doors
would you rly think you got that lucky?

How is it that you could literally write the fucking options out on a piece of paper and you still can't get your retard-brain round it?

Your pick is leftmost of any of the triplets.

G1 G2 C1
G1 C1 G2
G2 C1 G1
G2 G1 C1
C1 G1 G2
C1 G2 G1

Monty opens a door that has a goat behind it. So we remove either the middle or the rightmost of each triple depending on where the goat is.


G1 C1
G1 C1
G2 C1
G2 C1
C1 G2
C1 G1

Hey-fucking-presto, still six potential scenarios, 4 of which you lose unless you switch.

Go back to school.

What if the car is shit though?

>Philosophy major here to explain this to you brainlets.
I guess reading isn't important in philosophy? I was never doubting the 2/3 answer
This is why no one likes you brainlets. all you want to do it talk to yourselves and feel superior.

enjoy your goat

No that's gambling tier reasoning. Switching choices on a random 50 50 choice does NOT affect your chance to win the car.

Literally social-science tier marxist modelling. Try and explain it without a cuck graph please. It's a fifty fifty chance no matter the choice after the goat is revealed.

Fuck you.

Suck a dick you retard, maths is maths, it doesn't give a shit about your feelings being hurt.

Feel free to point out an actual flaw in the logic as presented, or kill yourself.

The problem is exactly the same in both cases, just with different numbers of doors existing and revealed. Don't be a retard.

>this level of degeneracy

Stop moving the goalpost moron.

Three doors, pick one

Another one is revealed to contain goat

You can either go through with your door, or pick the other one

YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHICH ONE HAS A GOAT OR WHICH ONE HAS A FUCKING CAR. ZERO. INFORMATION.

Hence, the probability is 50/50, switching the door doesn't fucking help you in the least.

Fuck you!

>degeneracy intensifying

Can't refute me, can you?

say your goal is to pick a goat as your first choice since if you pick a goat then switch you're guaranteed a car. how likely are you to pick a goat in the first place? 2/3

Was the probability 50/50 at the same? No?
Could opening the door change the liklihood you choose correct in the first place? No?

Then it can't be 50/50, can it, you retarded cunt?

Why do you keep saying ' you have no information' - what do you even think you mean by that? You know how many goats there are, you know how many cars there are, you know the probability that Monty's door was going to be a goat, you therefore know the probability that your door contains a car or a goat. What the fuck else would you need?

You have "NO IDEA" if it was 100 doors, with 99 goats, and monty opened 98 goat-doors. That's what makes you look so fucking inbred, how many doors monty opens and how many goats there were to start doesn't change how you approach the problem. My apologies that you literally don't have the capacity to understand this basic, easily demonstrable fact.

You had a 1/3 chance of being correct at the start. Your chance of being correct doesn't chance when the door is opened. Since there's only one door to switch from, that door has a 2/3 chance of being correct, and your starting door has 1/3 chance of being correct, because magic doesn't fucking exist and you're a retard.

Go write a simulation of it. Write out all the possibilities. Or just go and grab a person to act as Monty and FUCKING TRY IT YOURSELF.

Holy shit how dense are you? Math has poisoned your logical thinking. Von Neumann would support me.

Yes you have information mr. goalpost mover, that there's a fifty fifty chance of having a goat, or a fucking car behind the two remaining doors. but you have NO INFORMATION about which one it is. Hence, it's fifty fifty irregardless of your meme math.

It all depends on if we trust that the person opening the door knows for sure where goats are or if he is just lucky revealing a goat.

>>Game show host could not reveal the door you chose AND he had to reveal a goat.

Yeah, I should add this correction to my answer . The host will never open the door you pick, regardless of whether it is a car or goat. He will always either pick a random goat (in case you picked a car) or the other goat (in case you picked one of the goats).

Look at the tables in the thread. It doesn't matter how edgy you are, you're still wrong.

If the man opening the doors always opens a goat, then it is 2/3 if he has no clue but just happens to open a goat then it is 1/2.

You're a fucking cunt and I hope you die of colon cancer.

", that there's a fifty fifty chance of having a goat, or a fucking car behind the two remaining doors"

That is a literally meaningless statement. As is, it contains no meaning. What you actually just said is "there are two doors, one has a goat, and one has a car" - no fucking shit you retard. That doesn't fucking matter, your chance of winning is the chance that you ORIGINALLY chose the goat door, and that WASN'T 50/50, it was 33/66. Fucking hell.

So it is the psychology of wether or not to trust the gamemaker that is the spook in this case.

...

rosettacode.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

Eat a fucking dick.

.

Also why does everyone assume you would not prefer a goat in this problem? What if you had no relatives and no friends and no pets and only lots and lots of luxurious cars. Can't get a dog or a cat. Well in that case a goat is probably better than complete loneliness.

No, trust isn't a factor. You know that the host is definitely going to open a door to a goat and it won't be the door you pick. You then need to decide if you accept his switch offer or not based on probabilities, not trust.

A fucking dick would not be possible to eat because it would be busy fucking something.

Game over affeists.

If that is true then it is 2/3 but not everyone would trust it and there is no way for the player to verify it.

In a world where we treated linguistics like a bunch of single-definition literal-minded niggers, I guess so.

but your dick has never, and will never, fuck anything
false premise

You're literally told that's what he'd do. What part of that do you not trust?

No one said anything about whos dick to be eaten. So you are wrooong, hihohihohiho

> jumps up the nearest tree, taunts you and tosses bananas at you.

you're like that faggot kid in school who nitpicks the practicality of a question because he's too dumb to understand it's only a tool to test understanding of a principle and thinks he's a genius for it.
fuck off.

>You're a fucking cunt and I hope you die of colon cancer.
Haha epic man! Sure got you a lot of reddit renown with that sick burn. I'm not going to debate someone so assblasted he has to resort to cancer namecalling. How sad is your life?

What I said has no meaning? Sure, if you say so in your social science meme statistics that ignore a perfectly meaningful 50/50 probability situation.

Wait hang on... so if you chose the car door your probability changes... but you don't know if you chose the car door either. Nope still 50/50 lmao.

Kid

>No one said anything about whos dick to be eaten
exactly, so I must assume you're speaking for all dick. and obviously, all dicks are not constantly fucking something since yours never has. QED you're a faggot

Look at all those 50/50 choices irregardless of switching! Really tickles my neurons

What I trust is irrelevant. I am just trying to explain why other people think the way they think.

It would still matter though. It would be important to know that you're more likely to get a goat if you don't switch.

You literally don't know what you're saying. There's not point 'debating' you because half the thread is people explaining exactly how this works. There's no debate, you retard, you're just flat out wrong.

I didn't say the probability changes, you thick cunt. I said the probability you were initially correct was 1) Not 50% and 2) doesn't then change. Hurr, hurr, derpa derp. Learn to read.

this thread is full of trolls, right? No way there's brainlets like this out there

>2/3 switch choices are car
>2/3 stay choices are goat
>50:50

>Still so obsessed about some meme

Oh my god is your life sad or what. Can't you recognize a joke or a sillyness when you see one?

>durr durr fuck drump!
Your initial correctness doesn't matter, it's still 50/50-And I'm obviously talking about after the door has been revealed. Choice after that is 50/50, because you have TWO GUARANTEED DOORS, ONE GUARANTEED A CAR AND ONE A GOAT COMPLETELY RANDOMLY. FIFTY. FIFTY. CHANCE.

Goat car goat car goat car seems pretty 50/50 to me buddy.
Fucking brainlet

You're just trolling. The diagram you posted literally shows you switching wins 2/3 of the time.

2/3 isn't 50:50.

Kill yourself.

Are you blind??

If you trust the gamemaker yes. But to most people that is the question more than just accepting the premise and doing the math. Because in real life people sometimes get bribed and lie and fuck with your head. That is something most are more in phase with than Bayes theorem or anything probabilistic for that matter.

More like
t. 2.0 GPA sociology major

>I am just trying to explain why other people think the way they think.
>Can't you recognize a joke
>"hurr I was only pretending to be retarded"
go fuck yourself

Do you honestly think those colours are there for no reason? Green is for sticking, wins 1/3 of the time. Purple is for switching, wins 2/3 of the time.

This is how we know you're a troll. No one is that fucking stupid that they can't read such a simple graph. It even had pretty colours for you to reference!

>ITT: Nobody can explain some "super intuitive basic statistics" thing
Talk about a field on life support.

So you try and embarrass someone but end up being assblasted yourself. Then I would propose try to get better at what you are trying to do, or switch to something you are better at.

Monty always picks a goat, so in essence, if you resolve to always switch, your initial pick is basically selecting which door to drop, and you win if the car is in one of the other two doors.

More like everyone explains, and one retard doesn't get it, or trolls.

how would we know? could we verify it? everything could be staged. well if the premise is true you are right. but there is no way to verify so there is no reason to trust either.

That's how I answered every word problem in the 5th grade

>But to most people that is the question more than just accepting the premise and doing the math
no it's not you idiot. If you're talking about what most people would do, then the answer is most people would trust the game show. How many people on fear factor questioned joe rogan if they were really going to get the prize money if they ate those roaches. Even if you don't trust them, then the true probability becomes 50/50 and switching doesn't hurt your chances. However, since you aren't 100% sure he's lying then you're still more likely to get a car by switching. Anyway you phrase it, you should switch so your point is irrelevant. Now can people please stop bumping a troll thread. At least sage if you're going to post.

> if you resolve to always switch
Why would you switch? it's still a fifty fifty choice after monty reveals the goat.

...

Okay. I coded math formulas and games in basic in fifth grade.

how did I embarrass myself? you're the one that's continuously talking about trust like it matters because you're a retard who thinks nitpicking questions makes you smart. Not only that, but your point doesn't even invalidate the answer.

Were you as insufferable back then as well?

no because most would instinctively think "if i switch and miss it I will forever live with that choice. better to not switch than to switch and lose something that was within my grasp"

trying to explain/understand how people think is not nitpicking. it is a very important everyday life skill.

now i am much less insufferable and you are the insufferable autistic one. but you are probably just trolling.

it's retarded with 3 doors, you can understand it better if you think about it with 100 doors

Statisticucks btfo

it is nitpicking because 1. it has nothing to do with the principle of the problem 2. no one but you is arguing about trusting the host and 3. it doesn't even matter if you trust the host. the answer is the same.

>if you make the model suddenly actually make mathematical sense it doesn't suck!!!!

>Choice after that is 50/50
No one is arguing that the choice isn't 50/50 if it comes to picking a goat or car out of two possible doors, one with each.

What myself and the other guy have been trying to explain is that considering the host's intentions and the fact that one door has already been revealed to have a goat, and that you are given a choice between switching your initial choice and sticking with it, it is beneficial to take the switch offer because you will have a 2/3 chance of picking the door with the car. The math has proven it.

We're not saying that if you had two doors, one with a goat and another with a car, that you have a 2/3 chance of picking the one with the car.

wow you're really reaching now. Again, if you're trying to talk about what most real people would do then your example is not an accurate description. staying and switching are both choices you have to make and live with. If your example was valid, then no one would ever switch in games like that briefcase show with howie mendel. Also, it's outside of the scope of the question. It's asking what the best strategy is, not what most people would do and again,whether you have 100% faith in the host or not switching is the best strategy.

A goat might be cool

>like that briefcase show with howie mendel
That show is literally just a more complicated version of the Monty hall problem.

>No one is arguing that the choice isn't 50/50 if it comes to picking a goat or car out of two possible doors
> it is beneficial to take the switch offer because you will have a 2/3 chance of picking the door with the car.
Explain.

very simply put:
Your choice at first is 2/3 getting goat, 1/3 getting a good prize. Since your initial choice is based on that, the odds that you will choose a goat are higher than getting an actual good prize.
Now that that's out of the way,when they show you that one of the doors contains a goat, it is very preferable that you change your door choice, due to the fact that now you have a 1/2 chance of getting a good prize in contrast to the previous 1/3.
Hope this helps.

seeYou don't know what door blue you chose so you can only go by knowing the odds of switching purple 2/3 wins or staying green 2/3 losses.

>Explain.
You're a fuckwit.

Alright that kind of makes sense- I can see how a mathematician would be tricked into thinking that framework gives him an advantage. Thanks user!

hereFam, should be obvious now

Well I am obviously arguing if you can trust the host or not.
What matters is if you can't trust the host. Which is a much more every-day-like problem. Who can I trust? If they can bribe all the lower class parents of the world surely they can bribe a petty game host too.

I am not saying that the way of thinking is logical I am just saying that is how many people would think. They would percieve they for a moment had something even if they did not know about it and that switching would make them lose it.