Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 02:50:42 09/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 2002 at 18:14:03, Sune Fischer wrote: >On September 26, 2002 at 18:00:12, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 26, 2002 at 17:06:21, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On September 26, 2002 at 16:42:37, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On September 26, 2002 at 16:14:46, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 26, 2002 at 15:30:42, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>You are wrong because we had only one question. Was Marilyn right for the exact >>>>>>text of the question. I said no, because the question did not make clear that >>>>>>the host must _always_ open a door. >>>>> >>>>>What question are you refering too, not this one surely: >>>>>"Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given a choice of three doors. Behind >>>>>one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door-;say No. 1-;and the >>>>>host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door-;say No. 3-;which >>>>>has a goat. He then says to you, “Do you want to pick door No. 2?” Is it to your >>>>>advantage to switch your choice? " >>>>> >>>>>Not only does it say he opens a door, it also says he knows what is behind the >>>>>doors, and that he will open one with a goat, clearly he is all-knowing. >>>> >>>>The question says that the host knows. >>>>The question does not say that he always must open a door. >>> >>>Yes it does: >>>"the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door-;say No. 3-;" >> >>This is only explanation of what happened. >>The only information that is clear from the question is: >>1)you play on a game when you choose a door. >>2)The host knows what is behind the doors. >>3)The host opened a door that is the wrong door. >> >>This information is not enough to decide if you should switch doors. >> >>It is possible to understand that the host has to open a wrong door but it is >>not clear from the question. >> >>The question only says: >>"host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door-;say No. 3-;which >>has a goat" >> >>If his strategy is always to open a door is not clear from the question and the >>only information that we know for sure is that he opened a door. > >Yes you can, what is being described to you is an algorithm of how the show will >proceed/the rules of the game: > >1)you play on a game where you choose a door. >2)The host knows what is behind the doors. >3)The host will open a door that hides a goat. >4)You now have to decide if you want to switch doors. > >>The question did not use past tense but present tense so it makes the impression >>that the host always opens a door so I cannot say that merilyn was wrong but it >>is not clear from the question so I cannot say that people who say that data is >>missing are wrong. > >I don't see anything unclear about the question at all, he opens a door for >sure, and more than that, he opens a door with a goat behind it, he can do this >because he knows what the doors hide, there is no need for past tense, this guy >can see into the future! Very interesting to observe how people argue. In special the methods to prove something that should be proved. That alone already justified the topic here in the computer chess surroundings. Because it's IMO a traditional weakness in the debates about 'strength', ranking lists and 'confidence intervals'. Here in the debate between Uri and Sune the problem becomes very clear. People have a tendence to prove as true what they think to be true. But that proves nothing but weak education in science. - Uri makes very clear: "host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door" - this is exactly what the original question of Mr. Whitaker said. So, correctly, Uri makes the conclusion: "This information is not enough to decide if you should switch doors. It is possible to understand that the host has to open a wrong door but it is not clear from the question. - If his strategy is always to open a door is not clear from the question and the only information that we know for sure is that he opened a door." Uri does what every scientist must do, he tries to find the parts of data that could be accepted _without_ a doubt. Because all the rest might contain interesting data, but it can't be taken with certainty. - Sune on the other side has a tendence for authoritarian declarations, where the certainty is a question of imperative gesture but not of content: "I don't see anything unclear about the question at all, he opens a door for sure, and more than that, he opens a door with a goat behind it." Moral We should at least try hard to do a thorough analysis of the situation and the commentaries before we give our own opinions. It's so vain to state something with shallow content when the description of the situation could not be understood, because it can be easily reveiled. (Although I must admit that the whole thread was discussed without a single insult or offense. And I want to thank everybody. Let's give a short verdict. Marilyn was wrong because she didn't answer exactly the question of Mr. Whitaker. Probably she was influenced by the practice in the named show. But Monty, the host, stated that he was _not_ forced to open a door. So the question, if a candidate could make a logical choice with advantageous chances, must be answered with 'No!'. Therefore I insisted on the importance of the psychological situation of the candidate and not the picture as viewed from the outside, or after a simulation, because the candidate had only a single unique occasion to make his choice. In his view the opening of a door simply reduced the alternatives and led to a chance of 1/2 for both doors. In special the candidate could _not_ know if the host had opened a further door because he knew that no car was behind it. The text of the question does not allow to make a different conclusion. QED) Rolf Tueschen > >-S. >>Uri
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.