Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:47:56 09/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 2002 at 06:13:52, Sune Fischer wrote: >On September 27, 2002 at 05:50:42, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>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. > >Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. You felt being addressed here? > >> - 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. > >Correct, this information is NOT enough, but you were given ADDITIONAL >information! Namely that he opens to a goat! The only way he can do that is if >he knows what's behind the doors, but that is exactly what he does!, it all >fits. Your reflection is unneccessary because the question contained already that the host knows where's the car. Just read the data. > >> It is possible to understand that the host has to >>open a wrong door but it is not clear from the question. > >"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" > >None of us are native english speakers, so perhaps we can get a ruling from >someone else. >Does the above quote say if he opens a door or not? It's not a question of English but of logic. How could you ever conclude from 1 event on "all" events? It's trivial. Whether in Chinese or Marsian. > >>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." > >No it says he "opens a door", not "opened" a door, so you know for sure that he >will do it always. You misunderstand me. He opens a door, ok. So we know by now that he opened 1 door. But we do not know what happens tomorrow. At least in logic. You miss completely the question Marilyn had to answer. And therefore I tried to explain it in my *Conclusion*. But it seems as if you prefered to neglect it. Nevertheless you appear and want to insist. That alone is strange. > >>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." > >And you my friend have the weakest argumentation I have ever seen in my life, >you never ever get to the point. When you finally get caught in you own web you >run away saying you really meant something else. > >To be precise and to the point is a crucial ability for the scientist, to ramble >on for 16 pages about nothing is the other end of the spectrum, if you know what >I mean. I see. You have a personal axe to grind. Go on then and have fun. :) > >Then you start with you amateurish pseudo analysis of people, which is >off-topick, offensive, and very much an escape to avoid the real debate, which >you have lost so long ago but are not man enough to admit. As personal attacks are not allowed in CCC ... But that doesn't matter for you. > >If you have any good objective arguments I will listen, but please put a sock in >that mumbojumbo crap. Ok, you made clear that you think that I'm wrong and at the same time _you_ proved that you have no clue of logic. So - make your own conclusions. But you must not become angry. Science is not a good base for personal insults. We're not here to prove who is dumb and who is not. The same BTW as it makes no sense to insult people with psychiatric layman's diagnoses. [Soon you can read a chapter about this problem _also_ in computer chess on my webpage - - http://hometown.aol.de/rolftueschen/rolftueschenmosaik.html] So I thank you for giving the slight correction to my 'Moral' below. People can offend others also in CCC. Point taken, thank you. Rolf Tueschen > >Cheers, >-S. > >> >>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 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.