 | | Re: math question (or pattern... whatever...) —James Brown
|
| | | (...) You're also being incompletely rigorous. :) If you want to do an "all possible outcomes" probability check, you have to add in all the 'door revealed=prize' options which exist for the sake of the probabilities involved, but are never invoked (...) (22 years ago, 4-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: math question (or pattern... whatever...) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) Which is why those are left out: there never enter the scenario. Only those that would actually happen are "invoked". And the simulator supports my conclusions. Only if the host "cheats" does the 2/3 option become statistically correct. :-) (...) (22 years ago, 4-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: math question (or pattern... whatever...) —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) The host does cheat: he always reveals a losing door. That's part of the basic premise. (22 years ago, 4-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: math question (or pattern... whatever...) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) That is not a cheat. -->Bruce<-- (22 years ago, 4-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
