Author: Joachim Rang
Date: 13:31:55 09/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 2002 at 15:46:14, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 Okay, let's try: Assumptions: 1. There are 3 doors, each with a winning probability of 1/3 2. The host has to open a "wrong" door. Setting 1: The host anounces which door he will open _before_ you make your first choice. Because he has to open a "wrong" door, after that the chances of the two remaining doors are 1/2 Setting 2: The host has to open a door _after_ your first choice. If you choose a "wrong" door the host is _forced_ to open the only remaining "wrong" door. This changes the setting similiar to one, when you have to choose between three doors with a probability of 2/3. Okay I can't explain it scientifically correct, but the "mystic" lays in the dependency of your first choice and the second of the host.
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.