Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 14:04:52 09/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 2002 at 16:31:55, Joachim Rang wrote: >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. Doesn't matter, it's the idea that is important. The mystic lies in your phrase "if you choose a wrong door the host is _forced_ to open the only remaining door". I think now we have the clear scenario of 50:50 because your phrase does only cover one half of the possibility, the other half is unknown. Because only my own chosen door from part 1 is important. Only two case possible. Either I have the car or not. Of course I "forced" you to follow your own rules, but that couldn't give me more than 1/2 information. And I agreed already that I forced the chances to increase from 1/3 to 1/2... but not to 2/3 unfortunately, because it doesn't help for the unique case. BTW - in my page I quote Monty Hall denying that he was _forced_ to open another door at all. It's apparent that the whole set is depending on the general information level of the participating candidates. I for one took the theoretical candidate in the unique situation without knowledge about strategies and business rules of TV stations. As I stated on my website, the situation is a psychologically dominated one. The question is who is a true believer of the host and who's not. You can't make objective decisions. What I have observed in the German version of Make your bet with Juergen Draeger it's totally a game about unconscious influencing and manipulation. But basically it's always the 50:50 question. Otherwise there were no question what to choose. People want to win themselves and they are not happy with the mathematical probability in the longer run, when they have the unique and ultimate chance in their life to win something or to lose it. Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0 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.