Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 12:46:14 09/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 2002 at 14:35:29, Joachim Rang wrote: >On September 25, 2002 at 12:38:06, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>Please take a look at my revolutionary solution of this confusing problem: >> >>http://hometown.aol.de/rolftueschen/monty.html >> >> >>At first I went into the net and collected all sort of data for my page. I >>wanted to show how important methods and methodology are for science and also >>statistics. In special the exact defining of the terms. >> >>Then suddenly I had the inspiration and in a few minutes whitewashed a million >>people who as pupils, students or even professors let them be proved wrong by >>Marilyn vos Savant who has an IQ of 228. For decades now the Monty Hall Problem >>is taken as example for conditioned probability, which is wrong! >> >>Hope you enjoy my revelations. Please tell me if you want to comment. >> >>Rolf Tueschen > >hm, I didn't read all your stuff (its simple too much), but if I understand you >correctly, you claim, that the probability is 50% in both cases (switch or >stick). Right? > >Than you're wrong ;-) > >Only a simple note: > >you wrote: the help of the host....(There is no help - Rolf Tueschen) > >actually there is help. Because the host can not choose to open a door _before_ >you made your choice. He has to wait, which door you choose and than to open >from the left two doors the wrong one. This condition you may interpret as help >from the host. I like your reasoning. But it can't succeed. I am sure you saw that I already accepted that - sure - the host "helped" to bring the situation from 1/3 to 1/2. But unfortunately he didn't help more. But I'm open for explanations. Let me ask the following: Are you aware of the difference between a unique situation and the general question about the general probability in the long run? Because I do not deny that say a group of hundred people as a group have more wins if they switch! But the problem we have here, how you want to prove the increase above 1/2 for a single unique case. I think that this is the crucial point of the whole problem. And I'm sure that all the experts who opposed Marilyn vos Savant at the beginning did it because they knew that for the particular case conditioned probability could not help. But then they were influenced by the rich vocabulary of the smart woman. Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.