Subject:
|
Re: Now the stakes are higher....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:24:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
395 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, David Koudys writes:
> Now whetehr or not my co-worker succumbs to 'outside sources' as valid enuf
> to change his position remains to be seen
>
> I'm trying to explain his fallacy and I think I know where it lies now--
>
> His solution:
>
> r1 r2
> r1 b
> r1 w
> r2 b
> r2 w
> b w
>
> He states that position doesn't matter, but by his very layout of the
> columns presupposes that it does--column 2 is not the same as column 1--if
> column 2 is the one we expose, then we're missing possibilities--he has to
> either add all the possibilities (which you did wonderfully) or he has to say:
>
> r r
> r b
> r w
> b w
>
> are the unique possibilities, and we're still left with 1 in 3
Effectively, he's right but he's not giving things the probability they're due.
In his solution, the (r1 r2) choice is GUARANTEED that no matter which one
you reveal (r1 or r2), the one revealed will be red. However, with, say, (r1
b), there's a chance that the one you reveal will be blue, and NOT red.
Therefore, you can't count the probability of (r1 b) the same as (r1 r2).
The chance of (r1 b) being (r1 b) and NOT (b r1) is 1/2, whereas the chance
that (r1 r2) gets a red one revealed is 100%. Therefore, by his logic:
r1 r2 (2/6)
r1 b (1/6)
r1 w (1/6)
r2 b (1/6)
r2 w (1/6)
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Now the stakes are higher....
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.geek, David Eaton writes: <snip> (...) That's perfect! I owe you a lunch! Now whetehr or not my co-worker succumbs to 'outside sources' as valid enuf to change his position remains to be seen I'm trying to explain his fallacy and (...) (22 years ago, 6-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
