I'm sorry what now? Stop second guessing the puzzle which is clearly stated. I'm so, so done with this now that I am actually going to render inoperable my only HN account so I cannot possibly come back to this, or any…
Nope. But I am going to leave this to someone else to explain. I'm tired out now.
I am suddenly reminded of the clever, morally educational joke about the dead horse raffle.
Whenever someone talks about mean goats I think of only one thing: Buttermilk the baby goat, being a jerk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWvefaN8USk Enjoy.
> You do not know if he would have shown door 3 had you picked door 2! This is NOT in the prompt. You cannot assume that. Monty isn't a contestant. Monty's action and outcome is part of the fixed description of the…
> You’ve incorrectly assumed that I would be showing you a goat in every case. But that is not included in the prompt. Yes. It is. It is a fixed part of the scenario. Monty opens a door and shows you a goat. He knows it…
You've restated the problem (incorrectly) -- changed it. There's still a goat you could show me. And it is a fact that you show me a goat. Nowhere in the problem does it suggest there is a chance you show me a goat. I…
This is an even better learning experience than coding it right the first time, and I am so happy you had it!
> You have no way to know if he would only show you a goat if you picked the car. What do you mean? It's specified in the scenario. He shows you a goat. It's right there. This isn't a variable. It's a fact. Your only…
"If all you know is that he opened a goat door you have learned nothing." This is precisely where you are wrong.
It doesn't matter what he only does, or always does. It matters what he did in the problem as it is described. Because that is what you're solving.
> His purposeful behavior could also be random. It doesn't matter. Because the problem explains what happens: he opens a door and reveals a goat. That is crucial information. There's now only one goat and one car left.…
Yes but in fact Monty always shows you a goat. There's always a goat for him to choose regardless of your choice, he knows where it is, and he's not going show you the car or the goat you already picked. Showing you the…
No. I am not a mathematician but I got it once I understood that this is not drawing coloured balls randomly from a bag (which is how all my school probability problems seemed to go). That is: - the setup of the system…
> Without additional assumptions this original wording is not clear The only problem you are being asked to solve is the one described only in the words of the problem. That's actually what this is all about. This is a…
> But she wasn't really criticized for being a woman Nobody is saying she was criticised for being a woman, though. What they are observing is that it was the basis of and the tenor of attacks on her character,…
Yes indeed. I and others surely see from this comment that you're a fully mature thinker.
It's not unclearly specified. It's very tight. People who get it wrong are usually projecting some implied understanding onto it, which is why they get it wrong. Which is the point of the problem. It's designed to…
> Of the cited hate mail Savant received, I have to wonder how many were setup with poor writing on the topic. Have you spent at least equal time considering, given the tenor of much of it, how many were instead…
> I, like many, stated “50-50” because the odds of getting one of two doors right is in fact 50-50. Only if (in fact) it's an independent choice. It's not. If the prizes had been juggled behind the curtain after one…
That is also in the problem description. Again, it doesn't matter whether he does or doesn't ever do it (though no game show host would ruin the game). It is the described problem that matters. There was so, so much…
Fittingly it looks like informed choice.
With a following wind.
You don't need to know whether he does or does not do that all the time. Because he did it this time? Amazed this nitpicking is still going on; it's illustrative.
This is something I remember from the time. I could not grasp the probability maths (still shit at it, sorry Ms Von Savant) but I could write a program to experimentally demonstrate it, so I did. In QBasic. Because…
I'm sorry what now? Stop second guessing the puzzle which is clearly stated. I'm so, so done with this now that I am actually going to render inoperable my only HN account so I cannot possibly come back to this, or any…
Nope. But I am going to leave this to someone else to explain. I'm tired out now.
I am suddenly reminded of the clever, morally educational joke about the dead horse raffle.
Whenever someone talks about mean goats I think of only one thing: Buttermilk the baby goat, being a jerk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWvefaN8USk Enjoy.
> You do not know if he would have shown door 3 had you picked door 2! This is NOT in the prompt. You cannot assume that. Monty isn't a contestant. Monty's action and outcome is part of the fixed description of the…
> You’ve incorrectly assumed that I would be showing you a goat in every case. But that is not included in the prompt. Yes. It is. It is a fixed part of the scenario. Monty opens a door and shows you a goat. He knows it…
You've restated the problem (incorrectly) -- changed it. There's still a goat you could show me. And it is a fact that you show me a goat. Nowhere in the problem does it suggest there is a chance you show me a goat. I…
This is an even better learning experience than coding it right the first time, and I am so happy you had it!
> You have no way to know if he would only show you a goat if you picked the car. What do you mean? It's specified in the scenario. He shows you a goat. It's right there. This isn't a variable. It's a fact. Your only…
"If all you know is that he opened a goat door you have learned nothing." This is precisely where you are wrong.
It doesn't matter what he only does, or always does. It matters what he did in the problem as it is described. Because that is what you're solving.
> His purposeful behavior could also be random. It doesn't matter. Because the problem explains what happens: he opens a door and reveals a goat. That is crucial information. There's now only one goat and one car left.…
Yes but in fact Monty always shows you a goat. There's always a goat for him to choose regardless of your choice, he knows where it is, and he's not going show you the car or the goat you already picked. Showing you the…
No. I am not a mathematician but I got it once I understood that this is not drawing coloured balls randomly from a bag (which is how all my school probability problems seemed to go). That is: - the setup of the system…
> Without additional assumptions this original wording is not clear The only problem you are being asked to solve is the one described only in the words of the problem. That's actually what this is all about. This is a…
> But she wasn't really criticized for being a woman Nobody is saying she was criticised for being a woman, though. What they are observing is that it was the basis of and the tenor of attacks on her character,…
Yes indeed. I and others surely see from this comment that you're a fully mature thinker.
It's not unclearly specified. It's very tight. People who get it wrong are usually projecting some implied understanding onto it, which is why they get it wrong. Which is the point of the problem. It's designed to…
> Of the cited hate mail Savant received, I have to wonder how many were setup with poor writing on the topic. Have you spent at least equal time considering, given the tenor of much of it, how many were instead…
> I, like many, stated “50-50” because the odds of getting one of two doors right is in fact 50-50. Only if (in fact) it's an independent choice. It's not. If the prizes had been juggled behind the curtain after one…
That is also in the problem description. Again, it doesn't matter whether he does or doesn't ever do it (though no game show host would ruin the game). It is the described problem that matters. There was so, so much…
Fittingly it looks like informed choice.
With a following wind.
You don't need to know whether he does or does not do that all the time. Because he did it this time? Amazed this nitpicking is still going on; it's illustrative.
This is something I remember from the time. I could not grasp the probability maths (still shit at it, sorry Ms Von Savant) but I could write a program to experimentally demonstrate it, so I did. In QBasic. Because…