Subject:
|
Re: math question (or pattern... whatever...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:11:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
373 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > Whew. You are way off in your probablity and statistics analysis: if you
> > want to double everything, then you would have to list 112 and 113 twice
> > also. They are *not* the same selection.
>
> See this one for a clearer picture:
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/geek/?n=4210
I drew it out as pictures rather than as a word problem (trust an artist to
think that way, though I'll note I passed Calculus). I come up with 2/3 if
you switch. A 1/3 chance that you have the right choice initially. The
other two doors are an aggragate 2/3 chance. Even though one is eliminated,
it is a wrong one, so the aggragate whole of it being right is still 2/3.
If you switch to that {set of doors} you have a greater probablity of
choosing the {set} with the right door. Eliminating the wrong one is really
something of an illusion.
Yes, I figured I was wrong all along, but I had to figure out for myself
*why* I was wrong. Seeing them as sets was the key for me.
-->Bruce<--
Tilting at windmills is such fun!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: math question (or pattern... whatever...)
|
| (...) See this one for a clearer picture: (URL)No, because he won't use the same algorithm since he then becomes (...) That's not the problem presented, though. According to the problem, it's KNOWN that he ALWAYS reveals a zonk prize door that you (...) (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
|
|
|
|
