Subject:
|
Re: math question (or pattern... whatever...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:56:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
397 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.geek, James Brown writes:
>
> > 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 because the host will never show you the
> > winning door. It's been very thoroughly examined - the odds are 2/3. Check
> > out the links in this thread, some of which have simulation programs to
> > calculate the odds the long way for you.
>
>
> 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. :-)
The host does cheat: he always reveals a losing door. That's part of the
basic premise.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: math question (or pattern... whatever...)
|
| (...) 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)
|
61 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
