Is the Monty Hall problem real or Jewish tricks?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lb-6rxZxx0
>>71040918
Why not test it and find out?
Its fake, Classic feminist propaganda.
The host automaticly removes one door, so its not a choice between 3 doors.
Alot of "professors" as its just a title, got it wrong, including "experts" as they are merely following the pc establishment political correct bullshit. They cant do basic math and uses emotional logic, something feminists/women tend to do alot.
Think of why there are so Little women nobel prizes. The Savant cunt was put a on a pedestal and tried to look like OH WEE I BE SMART MATH LIKE U GUYS but all it did was embarras her.
Fuck, even the computer simulations were just bad simulations.
tl:tr
No, its a emotional trick, like saying 2+2=5, its orwellian/womens emotions in the work.
2 chances
Door A
Door B
A is switch
B is stay
Each is 50% chance using simple logic since there are 2 choices, not more.
Switching will not increase chance nor will staying.
Door A can be stay
Door B can be switch
it does not matter its 50% eternally.
Monty Hall is a demonstration of conditional probability, which is not the same as a real, one-choice probability. It's more theoretical than anything.
fake and gay
it's mathematics... Of course it's real. It's not intuitive but can be proven mathematically and experimentally.
>>71041628
Its more bullshit thats for sure.
If we use thirds and the like, then % wont be taken into consideration since the 100 door problem will be 99 even at a larger scale.
Fuck they can take 300 doors, its still 1/2 no matter what they choose.
>>71041864
Its women trying math for the first time and they using their emotions.
Replace the Word switch and stay with the Words 1 and 2
door A=1
door B=2
door A=2
door B=1
No matter what choice its 50% and thus 1/2
this is BASIC MATH.WOMEN FAILING AT BASIC MATH NEWS AT 22.00!
Its hilarious when that nisio writer that made cuckomonogatari couldnt do basic math either and just wrote it in and claimed his characters were good at math when ironicly enough they werent.
>>71040918
it's real, she explains it pretty well
>>71041895
If there were 100 doors your guess would be right 1% times but by switching you would be right 99% of the time.
This is baby level probability.
>>71040918
It's true, I've run simulations on it.
>>71041895
actually when we consider the scenario with 300 doors it became more clear that this is right. But you are trolling anyway, so I already feel foolish for trying to explain anything.
>>71042360
It does not matter if its 2 doors or 100 doors, in both situation its 50% and 1/2
100 doors and choose option 1 its 50%
100 doors and choose option 2 its 50%
this is simple math
Nvm this is just bait and someone on a Proxy trying to make american look the UH AMERIKANS ARE LE STUPID MEMEXD
>>71042370
link?
>>71042424
evidence needed to counter the evidence provided in the argument.
none provided, thus by your own logic
actually when we consider the scenario with 300 doors it became more clear that this is wrong. But you are trolling anyway, so I already feel foolish for trying to explain anything.
how does probability concentration do that? the chance of two doors consolidating into one without changing to 50%? then again im retarded at math so thats why im in liberal arts
>>71042524
2/10.
>>71040918
i coded a simulation and it works
still don't understand why tho
http://www.grand-illusions.com/simulator/montysim.htm
It's 66% to switch, 33% if stay
>>71040918
The only way to find out if it's true would be to try it in real life thousands of times with many different people around the world and see the results.
I'm just not convinced by her Jew logic.
>>71042700
Your first guess is 1/3 of being right. If you switch, then you would be right if you were wrong the first time (2/3).
>>71042772
50% option 1 and 2
Hence why your pro feminist simulation is a bad simulation.
>>71042700
It works because you choose the door completely randomly. The second option will either be the correct door because odds are you chose the wrong one or be the wrong door if by sheer luck you managed to guess the right door.
>>71040918
It relies the host having prior knowledge of what's behind each door.
>>71040918
It's real. Let us modify the problem:
There are 100 doors, and there is a prize behind one door. You pick one door, and Monty is then going to open 98 doors. The doors that he opens will not be the door with the prize, and it will not be your door.
Yes, you should switch.
You can simulate this and over thousands/millions of trials, the probability comes out to be 66% chance if you switch and 33% chance if you stay.
The easiest way to think about it is this:
>if you stay, you have to have chosen the car originally, since 2/3 doors will have goats and 1/3 will have a car
>if you switch, you will get the car if you've initially chosen a goat, since 2/3 doors are goats, you have a 2/3 chance of choosing a goat and therefore a 2/3 chance of winning if you switch
>>71042700
The chance of getting right on the first time is 33%
The chance on the secondtime is 50% (however it remains at 33% if you stay)
The total chance if you switch is 33%/50%=66%
>>71042605
there was no argument. I'm just feeding you out of boredom. We can play this game fot a little longer if you like swedbro, why not.
>>71040918
It's very simple. You pick a door, you have a 2/3 chance to pick wrong. One door opens that is not your door that is wrong.
You had a 66% chance of picking the wrong door the first time so you're better off switching. It's not 50/50. It would be if there were only 2 doors to choose from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_djTy3G0pg
>>71041625
how is this feminist propaganda?
because its a woman who explained it?
>pick door 1
>shows you 98 other doors
>door 1 is still closed
>not sticking with based door 1
>>71043048
The first door is already removed you dumbass
Read it again
Nvm this is just australians shitposting now is it?
If not then the feminist bullshit propaganda that a womyn is noew smaert suddenly become stronger.
>>71042952
Let me rephrase this
The chance of getting it correct before he opens the door is 33%
The chance remains at 33% if you remain.
There are two possible doors, so if there had been only two the doors in the first place, the probability is 50%
If you switch, since the probabaility was originally 33%, we have to take that into account by dividing the original probability by the supposed probability if there were only 2 doors
33%/50%=66%
>>71040918
no
I thought it was at first when i had it explained to me terribly
When explained properly it makes sense
>>71043459
This is what feminists and women actually Believe.
>>71042524
It's not 50/50. It's 1/3 or 1/100 that you get it right the first time. so you've a much higher chance of being wrong in your first guess. To switch at random you'd (in the case of three doors) have just as much chance of being wrong as you did your initial choice. But if somebody tells you that one of the doors you didn't initially pick isn't the one you want then you now have just two choices. But remember your chances of being wrong initially were 66.66%. ie more than 50/50.
meh... this is hard to into words.
>>71043605
That was satire. I tried to make a really half assed explanation
However the idea is still true,
Test it yourself
http://www.grand-illusions.com/simulator/montysim.htm
>>71043605
Lay off that Somalian cum for a while, Sven, it's really starting to affect your brain.
>>71043774
you women and your emotions are kinda hard into Words. they are biochemicals after all.
>>71041625
Even when a Swede is antifeminist, he's still a fucking moron.
Imagine it was 100 doors and one prize- in this case a black dildo. When you choose one, I leave that door closed and open 98 others, all that don't have the black dildo behind it, so now there's the door you chose and another door that are closed. Would you switch to the other door or keep the door you chose first?
>>71043797
Ahum,50% option 1 and 2
Hence why your pro feminist simulation is a bad simulation.
>>71043944
Is it 50/50 in other words?
/pol/ BTFO by jewish maths
ya fucks blew it
>>71041625
This is the most stupid post I've read on /pol/ all day. You don't need to overcompensate for the cuck status, Sweden.
>>71043605
Wow your really dumb, was your mom raped by a nigger Muslim?
>>71044024
Well duh there are only 2 doors left.
replace the Word switch and stay with option 1 and option 2 and it will affect it the same.
Feminist logic is based on emotions thats why these jew cucks truly Believe it, why do you Think israel is so cucked and has no pro White party in it while other White nations have nationalistic parties that are pro White in it?
>>71041625
Take 50 doors, one has the prize.
Now the host removes 48 and asks if you want to switch.
Before you had a 1 in 50 chance to get the prize, if you switch you have a 1 in 2.
>>71040918
It's real, simulations can confirm it.
The trick is on the surface it looks deceptively like it's the same as picking a door at random, which gives you 1/3 chance.
You pick a random door, he picks a random door, doesn't affect your odds, right? Except his choice of door is not quite random, infact it depends heavily on your initial choice of door - he can't pick that one, and he obviously can't show you the goat. His "choice" is quite restricted, infact the only time he even has a choice is when you guessed right in the first place.
Since he purposely avoids the goat and you didn't, you still only have 1/3 chance of having guessed right - your odds don't improve like they would have if it had been YOU opening a second door. If it had been you opening it, it would have been at random, and the reason your odds would improve was that it COULD have been the right door (in which case the game would have been over).
>>71044275
No, it's actually a 98% chance the one you picked first isn't right
>>71041625
Eh... I'am tired of explaining it to retards like you...
Let's scale it up.
There are 100 doors, you chose one monthy reveals the goat behind remaining 98 doors, do you swap or do you stay?..
In one case it rarely make a difference but if you test it yourself like 20 times and you will see, the more tries you get the bigger the possibility that you will win, the law of large numbers its nicely explained here https://youtu.be/FRlbNOno5VA?t=11m14s 11:14
>>71044275
if you don't switch, you still have 1 in 2 chance
why is the reason behind this whole stupidity?
>>71043463
2.22 is when the lie is done.
Door 3 is still 1/3, it stopped being part of a 2/3 ensemble when half of the ensemble was removed.
Jewish kikery, as always.
This also disregard evolution and biological responses faced with a choices.
You tend to stick with choices that you can conceptualize, you don't when the odd exceed what you can imagine.
OK LOOK.
THERE ARE 3 OPTIONS FOR YOUR STARTING DOOR.
IF YOU START WITH GOAT 1 AND SWITCH, YOU GET A CAR
IF YOU START WITH GOAT 2 AND SWITCH, YOU GET A CAR
IF YOU START WITH THE CAR AND SWITCH, YOU LOSE
2/3 OF THE TIME IF YOU SWITCH, YOU GET A CAR.
ITS THAT SIMPLE
HOW ARE PEOPLE SO STUPID
>>71044559
>>71044242
Why don't you just try it yourselfs? Have someone just prepare 3 cups and something like a coin under it and you try it, first try staying with your choice every time then try switching every time and see the result yourself...
>>71044008
It's 2/3/2 not 2/3
It's nothing but misdirection.
>>71043944
You are an idiot.
the initial setting didn't change by opening the doors.
"your door" still represent an equal chance because IT BELONGS TO THE NOT OPENED DOOR ENSEMBLE JEWISh JACKASS!
>>71043797
I'm not disagreeing with you but you realise how simple it is to make the simulation follow the rule? In real life it would not be as perfect as this.
>>71044008
this is retarded
It has 2/3 chances of being in 2 out of 3 doors
it has 50/50 chances of being in 2 out of 2 doors
it has 100% chance of being in one out of 2 doors when you open the wrong door
This is a misleading logic, that uses the result instead of the chance. Chance is something measured before a result, a possibility of outcomes.
the act of switching does fucking nothing, but a play on a math illusion
its just wordplay
>>71044452
1/50 = 2/100 = 0,02
1-0,02 = 0,98
faggot
>>71044701
this
It's real. Our brains have terrible cognition abilities for probability theory.
Also check the Daughter borned on friday problem (or something like that)
>>71041895
>conditional probability
>bullshit
Do you disbelieve Bayes' theorem too?
lol half of you fucks are struggling with basic probability
embarrassing
>>71040918
If you were trying to prove just how stupid /pol/ is, you've done an excellent job.
The fact that you dumb fucks try to do mental gymnastics to deny the monty hall problem, which is babby's first probability problem, and think you know better than actual people that study probability, you're just proving how stubborn and stupid this entire board is. Fuck, this thread is maddening in its idiocy.
>>71044963
You picked one of thee doors initially. Odds are you picked wrong.
In a room of 23 people, there’s a 50% chance of 2 people having the same birthday.
>>71045358
>being this blue pill
>>71044559
Feminist logic.
Even if it was 3 doors and not 2 doors, it would change to 33% chance of winning no matter if you pick option 1,2(and since a door is added,)3
>>71045265
>Bayes' theorem
Bayes was clearly a jew plant in English academia. Don't even get me started on that jew GauB, him and his so-called "normal" distribution, as if I'm ever going to pick an abnormal distribution.
>Daily reminder 3/2 of all statistics are Jewish tricks.
>>71044963
But in the end, probability is determined by statistically what the result is. When you think it's 2/3, you're considering all the information presented in the problem. When you say 1/2, you're refusing to include a large part of the information. If we ran this experiment 1000 times, the results would show 2/3 success if you switched doors. Saying that's "just a result" and not "predictable" shows you're a moron.
It is kinda amusing how pigeons and ravens figure out the Monty Hall problem rather quickly, but humans don't.
what if you dont have to reveal your pick is at first then a loser door is revealed and now you get to make your pick public
do you still think its 50/50?
Holy shit /pol/ is stupid
>>71044920
The host knows which door conceals the prize, and he opens all doors that do not except for one if you picked the prize, or all that do not if you didn't. This information causes your initial chances to directly transfer when you're left with the option of choosing differently, since you are far more likely to have guessed incorrectly during the initial round.
im getting upset, if you are trolling STOP i cant tell what the fuck is right anymore. to me this always switch doors sounds like bullshit.
HOW MANY FUCKING GOATS ARE THERE
>>71045888
To be fair, statistics aren't intuitive as people seem to believe. Most US students won't have significant study of stats outside of collegiate STEM fields.
You can graduate in America with 4-year bachelor's degrees, having not taken a single statistics course.
>>71042973
Premice:
the car may be behind any door.
The only effective choice is the last one because it is final
benevolence must not be considered in this purely logical problem.
At the moment n the number of unopened door is 2. the odd to open the correct door is 50%. The initial number of door is cremative jewish noise.
Because it's pure odds and because every opened door recalculate the individual odds the odds will always be (100/x)
Where x is the number of unopened door.
This is a case of jewish psychological exploitation of the mongrelized.
>>71045196
Born or boned?
...both?
>>71044701
/thread.
Based countrybro.
I'm so irritated by people argueing over math problems that take literally 5 minutes to figure out empirically.
Spoiler: it's not 50/50.
>>71046054
>The host knows which door conceals the prize
That was at no moment, a part of the equation.
Benevolence isn't a part of the equation because you cannot ascertain it.
>>71046288
Doesn't matter because the problem clearly stated that the host didnt open the door with the prize.
>>71046288
This has nothing to do with "benevolence". The Monty Hall problem doesn't include a scenario where the host accidentally reveals the prize.
>not wanting the goat over the car
its just highly counter intuitive
the correct choice is to switch everytime, this is undeniable
does it rustle you? too bad
I don't really get this. Wouldn't your chances of the first door change the moment one of the doors were removed? Your 1/3 becomes a 1/2.
Would switching doors actually increase your chance by 33% in a real life application?
People who understand the odds are decided by the number of door at the end.
We are fucked with so many leftists idiots around.
>>71046385
>>71046435
Benevolence, imply this problem is set to make you win the car.
1/3 is an illusion it's 1/2 from the start.
Yoour choice is final only when there is 2 door.
Lrn2 eliminate mathematic noise.
>>71046620
No it doesn't.
They don't want to admit they couldn't understand the problems in the enunciation by themselves so sucks the wish kikess clit.
>>71046620
in the first instance your chance is 33%
in the second instance your chance is 50%
thus in the second round of choosing you chance of winning is higher than in the first round
thus you choose again
Mythbusters did it, you're all a bunch of fuckin retards.
>>71046744
why choose the other only option when you're already sitting on a 50% chance door?
>>71046744
The tirck is to make people think a choice was made at 3 doors, when the only choice with consequences is made at 2 doors.
That's done in order to trigger an emotionnal response where people stick with what they have.
>>71044653
This!
Hello friends
I have Ph.D in Math. and listen up.
This experiment is wrong from start and its very simple.
When they make experiment they always assume price and goats are in same place when you choose different goats and they don't account for randomness in system.
There are 2 random elements not taken in account.
First people choosing because you never know what he will choose
Second randomness of position of price behind door.
And into trash it goes
>>71046200
If 100 people played the game with 100 doors and all stuck, how many would probably win?
>>71044653
this still implies the host doesn't know which door the car is behind
>>71046994
>I have a PhD in math
And into the trash it goes
>>71046994
when you choose different doors (not goats)
They always choose their doors by 1,st, 2,nd , 3rd door sequence
So if you constnatly repeat experiment by choosing by 1. 2. 3. door then you get those results, they never account for 2 different factor of randomness
>>71047032
2% if they stay 98% if they switch
>>71047070
The host always knows, that's why he never "accidentally" opens the door with the car first
>>71047032
Just go up to 6 gorillion doors.
Choice A: "I made the correct 1-in-6-gorillion choice the first time. I will keep my door."
Choice B: "There's a 5.999-gorrillion-in-6-gorillion chance that I picked the wrong door with my first choice. I will switch to the door that the man with perfect information hand-picked."
Apparently some retards think these are equal choices~
>>71046994
>i can't comprehend simple probability, yet i claim to have a phd
t. Slobodan Mathematić
>>71040918
if you have 3 doors and one of them is a car door, you have a 1 in 3 chance of picking the car door. therefore, a 2 in 3 chance of picking a goat door. if you picked a goat door, the only other goat door will be eliminated when the host opens it, so switching will give you the car. on the other hand if you picked the car door, switching will result in you losing by switching to the remaining goat door. so because switching is the correct decision when you picked a losing door originally, and picking a losing door is twice as likely than picking the winning door, that means that overall switching gives you a better chance of winning the car. pretty simple
>>71047160
Everybody stays. How many win?
>>71047320
Probability =/= randomness
You should go back to what you do best Hungary. Being Peasants
>>71047218
thats why its all a wordplay problem and 1/3 vs 2/3 is correct
Let's suppose you have to pick between 100 doors, and you pick one; after it, the host opens up 98 doors without a prize and leaves just the one you picked, and another closed door.
Would you switch?
Just change 100 to 3 and 98 to 1 and it's the same problem.
>>71045888
>>71046150
Yeah, but it's one thing to struggle with an unintuitive result... it's another to blame da' Jews/Feminism.
Linking a Numberphile playlist here would probably convince some posters of a genuine conspiracy.
>>71047320
>t. Slobodan Mathematić
tiptopkek.*
Probability is to math what psychology is to science and what wine tasting is to culinary critique.
>>71047399
>Hungarian math: gave geniuses to the world like Paul Erdos, Szemeredy (Abel winner in 2012), Von Neumann, Wigner...
>Croatian math: 2+2=5
Sure thing Jelasicfag!
>>71040918
Science has always been dominated by jews. Just look at the nobel prices.
ITT actual retardation
>>71047943
Wow I list some faggots from wikipedia
My country smart
Me good boy.
Go light up candle because you dont deserve electricity from Nikola Tesla
someone explain this to me.
You know that after you pick your first door, another door will open that does not contain the prize.
Hence, there are two doors to choose from in the REAL puzzle, the door you pick now, and the one remaining door.
Therefore, the door you pick has a 50% chance of having the prize behind it.
how does this not work?
>>71048114
Thats problem idiot where I explained.
You always place wining price at same place when choosing.
Try to randomly place price behind doors then your theory goes to toilet
>>71048163
>>71048114
wait nevermind it makes perfect sense.
Because you have a higher chance to pick an incorrect door at the start, and after your pick the choice is reduced to stay with your selection from {win, fail} or swap to the opposite, the odds of winning through swapping are the same as your odds of choosing the wrong door initially.
Why don't they just show that picture the whole time.
>>71048131
>Go light up candle because you dont deserve electricity from Nikola Tesla
Thomas Edison* you mean.
>>71048163
You are not picking one door
You are picking two doors
>>71048131
>Wikipedia for "Croatian mathematicians" contains 21 entries.
>wikipedia for "Hugarian mathematicians" contains 153 entries
kekkity kek
>still falling for the tesla meme
>tesla: Serbian-American
poor croat :/
>>71048163
see >>71048114
if you picked a losing door in your initial choice, then swapping will result in picking the correct door. you understand that? because you picked a wrong door, and the only other wrong door has been eliminated for you.
if you picked the winning door, then swapping will result in your picking a wrong door, because only 1 of the wrong doors has been eliminated, and the door you would swap to is the remaining wrong one.
it's more likely that you picked a losing door than a winning one, so you should swap. i can run a computer simulation over a large number of trials if you would like
>>71048326
Faggot who didnt want to switch from DC to AC current
Haha ok go light up your lights with batteries
>2-in-3 chance prize is behind other 2 doors
>1 of those doors is eliminated
>remaining door absorbs other door's chance for DOUBLE the chance!
what the fuck
>>71048218
Who is this dumb jew and how did she become a professor by theorizing about game shows? Academia is such a crock of shit these days.
>All these fags saying it's wrong
Is /pol/ really this dumb, or are you just meming? I can't tell any more.
The trick is that revealing the goat doesn't change the initial probability at all.
>>71048564
Think of it like this:
Door 1 = 0.333 Door 2 OR 3 = 0.667
Even if you remove 2 or 3 individually, the probability is grouped.
>>71048637
LOL I posted MEME pic that will show him.
You still didnt refuted my explenation.
Try placing randomly price behind different door.
Not having it at same place or switching it between 1,2,3,1,2,3.... sequence.
>>71048663
They're genuinely seriously that stupid.
>>71048163
The thing is, the circumstances of the second choice (to swap or not) are dependent on your first choice (one door out of three).
So if a group of people are all faced with the Monty Hall Problem, 2/3 of them will choose the wrong door before they get to swap. That means for 2/3 of them, the swap will actually result in the correct door.
The choice of a swap is not a coin flip, it is already weighted in favor of swapping. Imagine a coin where the heads side weighted so that it comes up twice as often as tails, then you'd get heads 2/3 of the time. That's what the swap is like in the Monty Hall Problem.
>>71045196
Monty Hall problem is simple stuff.
But that daughter shit is plain bullshit.
>>71041895
>>71041625
Don't they teach basic probability in Sweden for fuck's sake
>>71040918
It's real you fucking mong. Goddamn American education.
>>71048677
>>71048788
But the probability is only distributed that way in the first place because it is a 3-way split.
Why does eliminating one of the doors not eliminate it's share of that distribution entirely? Why is it redistributed to a single door instead of just resetting the probability to 50/50?
>>71048814
And blaming da joos for their stupidity. I don't know why I was surprised.
>>71046994
>Claims to have mathematics doctorate
>Can't apply "without loss of generality"
>>71048809
you can't even speak english nigger. look at the drawing again if you don't understand it
>>71049011
GET THE FUCK OUT with your stupid retarded explenations I am sick to my stomach
If one side of coin is weighted 2/3 more then other, and if you repeat experiment from same height and same angle it will always come on heavier side.
On other note, if you randomly toss coing in different angle and different speeds and height which again is highly problematic because you need to specify what kind of randomness, because if its erratic randomness they you cant really know probability because it could be that 100 times in row it falls on head.
Probailty is not randomness.
Probability states how much times you will make something by pre setted rules.
And randomness actually doesnt exist in cause and effect world.
>>71049345
>Why is it redistributed to a single door instead of just resetting the probability to 50/50?
Because it is not between two doors it is between two sets
One set contains two doors
>>71049345
Vos Savant suggests that the solution will be more intuitive with 1,000,000 doors rather than 3. (vos Savant 1990a) In this case there are 999,999 doors with goats behind them and one door with a prize. After the player picks a door the host opens all but 1 of the remaining doors. On average, in 999,999 times out of 1,000,000, the remaining door will contain the prize.
>>71049483
>>71049453
You faggots only reply " HE DUMB HE STOOPID"
Can you please refute my argument which I stated.
You never accounted for randomness in system where price is placed.
If you choose door in 1,2 ,3 1,2,3 order and go by that strategy yeah sure its 33 -66 chance.
But if you have random placement of price you cant predict by that strategy outcome
Its flawed and I know you faggots wont answer my question because you are fucking idiots who worship all mighty wikipedia written by Feminist faggot
>>71049805
>Can you please refute my argument
WITHOUT
LOSS
OF
GENERALITY
It doesn't matter which door the car is behind, because the door labels are irrelevant before you pick one. Just re-order the doors.
>>71041625
TRIGGERED
>>71049345
It isn't redistributed. You have a 2/3 chance of selecting a losing door, which is selecting Door #2 OR Door #3 in this case.
So at the start you pick a door at random:
p(Win) = 0.333
p(Lose)= 0.667
In this case winning is picking Door #1
Losing would be choosing either Door #2 or Door #3.
After picking a door the host is forced to eliminate a losing one.
If you picked Door #1 (winner) then Door #2 (loser) OR #3 (loser) gets eliminated. Switching LOSES.
If you picked Door #2 (loser) then Door #3 (loser) gets eliminated. Switching WINS.
If you picked Door #3 (loser) then Door #2 (loser) gets eliminated. Switching WINS.
>>71049805
You are a dumb trolling faggot. You're either stupid or being intentionally stupid, but it's obvious you don't understand even basic probability.
There are a few key elements to the problem. The host knows all the information. The host will only eliminate goat doors because he knows which door has the prize.
So your first pick is 1/3 shot of being correct. The host eliminates a door he knows is a goat door. Your remaining choice is a 2/3 chance of being correct.
You can scream all you want about how right you are, how its all jewish magic and mysticism, but regardless of all of your awful reasoning and stupid arguments, one simple thing proves you wrong: testing. Run the test 1000 times exactly as described. Either by writing code to carry it out(though I doubt you could actually do this since you're clearly retarded), or manually have a friend perform the test with you 1000 times. 500 times, you stay with the same choice. 500 times, you switch.
You'll find that switching averages to a 66% success rate compared to 33% of the original pick. There is nothing left to discuss. Any other whining or pleading or namecalling you do is just empty bravado to try to cover your stupidity. There's nothing left to say in this thread.
i'm working on a simulation for you fags
package montyHall;
import java.util.Random;
public class Simulate {
public static int generateNumber(int x){ // returns a random value between 1 and x
Random rand = new Random();
int y = rand.nextInt(x);
return (y + 1); // add 1 to change it from 0 inclusive to x exclusive, to 1 inclusive to x inclusive
}
public static void main(String[] args){
boolean[] doors = new boolean[3];
for(int i = 0; i < doors.length; i++){
doors[i] = false;
}
doors[generateNumber(3)] = true;
int selectedDoor = generateNumber(3);
}
}
you're making me do this shit and i don't have time for it
>>71049805
change the order yourself and draw it out again yourself and you'll get the same probabilities. croatia's not the brightest of the bunch apparently.
>>71050258
and yes i know that it's not necessary to add 1, i had copied that function from another project
>>71048163
Imagine you have 1 trillion doors in front of you.
1 of them has the car, the others have goats.
You choose one door at random.
Now the host OPENS ALL OTHER 999999999999999 DOORS with goats except one door.
So now you know the car is either behind your door or behind the other door which the host didn't open.
But the chance of you picking the door with the car at the beginning is very very small, so chances are the other door has the car.
If you can't understand this one, just quit.
>>71050182
You are idiot that constantly repeats same given explenation to problem . 1/3 , 2/3 bro BRO.
Get fuck out of my face with 1/3, 2/3 explenation it doesnt prove anything.
LOOK AT THIS FUCKING PICTURE YOU IDIOT IF YOU CANT UNDERSTAND.
JESUS FUCK are you retarded that this example is made in narrow context
Just repeat your Wikipedia and Youtube explenations
>people still can't grasp this
jezus fucking christ
>>71050258
Check my picture and take in account that price is placed randomly as doors are also choosen randomly .
>backed up by 3rd grade math
clearly a jewish conspiracy
>>71050682
Why do they let a nigger pick the door?
>>71050925
cause he a playa
>>71050258
Program is flawed from start
>for(int i = 0; i < doors.length; i++){
Again you are choosing door by sequence 1-2-3.
WHERE IS FUCKING RANDOMNESS??
And also price needs to be set in random places.
>>71050815
troll
>>Cucks legitimately don't understand that allowing you to switch is the same percentage as allowing you to choose two doors at first.
>>71040918
It's easy to understand
>>71051117
that loops just setting all the doors to false. the randomness is rand.nextInt(3); which generates a random number, either 0 1 or 2. then that door will be set to true. wait and watch dumb faggot, you're gonna be blown the fuck out in an hour or 2
>>71051302
2 hour for making program
That generates 2 random variables and repeats experiment x times.
Good to know you are copy paste programmer.
And be sure to give me code so I can compile it and run it.
>>71050725
And then blame Jews/Feminists for their failure.
Jesus fucking Christ indeed, how embarassing.
Here's a babby java code I made a while back (1/2)
import java.util.Scanner;
public class MontyHall {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Scanner input = new Scanner(System.in);
boolean error = true;
while(error == true){
System.out.print("How many times would you like to simulate the Monty Hall Problem? ");
int testNumber = input.nextInt();
if(testNumber > 0){
int[] switchOutcomes = new int[testNumber];
int[] stayOutcomes = new int[testNumber];
double carDoor;
double selectedDoor;
double doorTotal = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < testNumber; i++){
carDoor = Math.ceil(3 * Math.random());
selectedDoor = Math.ceil(3 * Math.random());
stayOutcomes[i] = game(carDoor, selectedDoor);
}
for(int i = 0; i < testNumber; i++){
if(stayOutcomes[i] == 0){
switchOutcomes[i] = 1;
}
else{
switchOutcomes[i] = 0;
}
}
double switchResult = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < testNumber; i++){
switchResult = switchResult + switchOutcomes[i];
}
double switchPercent = (switchResult / testNumber) * 100;
double stayPercent = 100 - switchPercent;
System.out.println("By switching, you would've won " + switchPercent + " percent of the time.");
System.out.print("By staying, you would've won " + stayPercent + " percent of the time.");
error = false;
}
else{
System.out.println("Your input for the number of trials must be a positive integer.");
}
}
}
public static int game(double car, double chosen){
boolean[] status = {false, false, false};
Double d = new Double(chosen);
int choice = d.intValue();
if(car == 1){
status[0] = true;
}
if(car == 2){
status[1] = true;
}
if(car == 3){
status[2] = true;
}
int result = 0;
if(status[choice - 1] == true){
result = 1;
}
return result;
}
}
Here is best explenation for Monthy hall problem there is Kangho hall problem which is opposite.
First you choose door and host shows you wrong door.
Second Host shows you wrong door and you choose right one?
Is it 50/50 now. You see logic is flawed.
Its same if as Host didnt choose door
>>71040918
The way it's set up is it always brings your chances to 50%.
The problem is conditional probability is conceptually hard to grasp and this is the first step.
I love maths threads because they can remind me of how stupid /pol/ can be.
I bet some of you don't think that 0.999... = 1 either
Alt-conservatives are constantly crowing about "muh STEM" and making fun of liberal arts majors, but as it turns out, /pol/ are actually completely terrible at math.
Here's the simplest way I can illustrate the Monty Hall effect. If you don't understand it after reading this image, then you never will, and should probably never even think about entering a career that requires heavy use of math.
Don't even reply to this post. You either get it, or you suck at math.
>>71051703
>>71051740
i'm doing it myself nigger i don't need yours
>>71040918
99% chance a Muslim is behind door #2
>>71041625
How does it feel to be retarded?
>>71052210
Ok faggot answer my question in different wording.
I am host who picks wrong door.
There are 3 doors, and at begging I choose wrong door, so I eliminate 1 door and there are 2 left.
So there is 50/50
But somehow if you pick before I eliminate you get 33/66 how is that?
>>71048114
>>71048320
>>71048677
I think you guys are far overthinking this.
It's always going to be a 50% chance regardless because 1 false door will always be revealed to be false. This means, in essence, your corresponding choice is merely between 2 doors.
It's pointless to do a probability calculation on 3 doors when you know very well that 1 of those 3 doors is going to be rendered meaningless.
>>71052188
>I bet some of you don't think that 0.999... = 1 either
And those that do think that, just insist it can't be so and stop thinking about it.
I don't like 0.999... = 1 either, so I read up on Surreal Numbers. But it is pretty clear that algebraically 0.999... = 1 is true with Real Numbers.
>>71052537
Thats what I am saying constantly.
If host eliminates door before you choose it, its same as if he eliminates after you already choose.
Because you are having 2 choices either way.
Its number of choices that matter not initial number for doors.
>>71052537
All you have to do is draw a probability diagram to suss this one out.
>>71048114
There's not much to think about, actually. It's just unintuitive until you work it out is all.
>>71041625
It's literally maths and probability theory, you fucking retard.
There's no political agenda behind this, it's as apolitical as you can get!
>>71052210
> Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation confirming the predicted result (Vazsonyi 1999)
>>You either get it, or you suck at math.
Ok.
>>71052471
>>71052537
It's a matter of perspective, I think. Imagine this:
What is the probability of a woman giving birth to four boys in a row?
(1/2)^4 = 1/16
A woman has three boys. What's the chance the next kid is a boy?
1/2
In a similar fashion:
What is the chance of winning if you make the plan to switch doors?
2/3
What is the chance of winning if there are only two doors and you flip a coin to decide which one to pick?
1/2
>>71052786
In other words, consciously switching doors in this case is NOT equivalent to randomly picking one of the two remaining doors.
I think the argument being made for 50/50 is heavily relying on the fact that there is nothing inherently special about the doors. While true, there is though something inherently true about the conscious choice in this situation.
>>71052786
>What is the chance of winning if you make the plan to switch doors?
It's not 2/3 if the corresponding choice is only between 2 doors.
Let me put this into perspective. I have a bag of 4 marbles. 1 of these will win. The very second you make that ultimate deciding choice of reaching into the bag, I say wait wait, and pull a losing marble out.
The initial probability now has nothing at all to do with the ultimate probability of you winning.
>>71046994
Somewhat fittingly, most of the people who quibbled with Vos Savant's answer were also maths PhDs... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#Vos_Savant_and_the_media_furor
At the start you have 3 doors, you pick one, only one is correct. The chance of you being right is 1/3, the chance of being wrong is 2/3. Now one wrong door is eliminated and the host gives you the chance to switch. You must remember that your chosen door still has a 2/3 chance of being wrong, therefore the act of switching your door has a 2/3 chance of being the correct choice. If you'd start off with 100 doors, the probability of changing your door (being the correct choice) would even be 99/100. Short version: The chance of being wrong in the beginning equals the chance of later switching your door being a correct choice. Not that fucking difficult.
>>71052210
To make it simpler you should've included the crossed door as part of the swap option.
Honestly for all intents and purposes you may as well pretend the host didn't open the door and instead gave it to you as a "free door" in addion to the one you can swap to. But you'll only get the "free door(s)" if and only IF you swap. Meaning if you swap you get two doors instead of one.
Should make it simpler.
>>71053261
No, the equivalent situation would be if I pulled a marble out of the bag but didn't know if it was a winning one, and then you took two losing ones out and gave me the chance to switch with the one still in the bag
>>71040918
Yes.... yes it is
>>71053095
It's a matter of trust.
The variable is the guy opening the door, not the door.
It's 2/3 if you think he knows what's behind the door.
It's 1/2 if you think he doesn't.
The problem is that's 2/3 on average for all the people that tried this.
For you at the moment you decide, it's 1/2.
>>71053510
Yes thats what I am saying.
If he eliminates door at beggining it leaves you at 2 doors again which is 50/50
So it doesnt matter if he eliminated before or after
>>71040918
isn't this obvious? If you pick it at first you have a 33% chance of winning but if you pick it after you have 50% chance of winning
you can actually code a program to simulate thousands of runs and see for yourself it checks out.
>>71053261
>The very second you make that ultimate deciding choice of reaching into the bag, I say wait wait, and pull a losing marble out.
But that's not the Monty Hall problem at all.
A marble version would have you reach into the bag of four marbles, pick one, then the host pulls out a losing marble, then offers you a choice to swap your picked marble for one of the two remaining marbles. In which case, if my napkin math is right, 5/8ths of the time a swap will yield a losing marble.
>>71053529
Even still, in that situation it comes down to either having the true marble or the false marble which you do not know until after your choice is made.
And the decision you make there is what makes it 50/50.
You're trying to account in probability things that were already going to be eliminated.
case A: you choose the wrong door initially - 2/3 chance of doing so
case B: you choose the right door initially - 1/3 chance of doing so
for A: host opens a wrong door, switching would yield the right door in this case
2/3rd's of the time switching is good
for B: host opens a wrong door, switching would yield the wrong door in this case
1/3rd of the time switching is bad
is this a correct way to look at it?
>>71053674
Except you completely missed my point.
Not that I expected anything better from a slavshit.
>>71053836
It's an illustration that the initial probabilities are meaningless since those are based upon things that are already going to be eliminated.
What counts is the final choice, which if between 2, is 50/50.
>>71053674
It does matter. The host knows where the goats are (a reasonable assumption) and so his choice in opening a door inputs information of the winner into the mix.
>>71053757
Notice how the people arguing for 50/50 are ignoring my program?
>>71053840
Randomly choosing to stay or switch will let you win 50/50, but always switching increases your odds. From wikipedia:
Indeed, if a player believes that sticking and switching are equally successful and therefore equally often decides to switch as to stay, they will win 50% of the time, reinforcing their original belief. Missing the unequal chances of those two doors, and in not considering that (1/3+2/3) / 2 gives a chance of 50%
>understanding probability makes you a leftist now
Thanks neo-/pol/
>>71053261
So you are telling me that even if the door you chose had 1/3 chance of having a car behind it, it somehow magically changes to 1/2 chance.
Explain how the door you pick can DEMONSTRABLY have more cars in 1000 experiments after the switch.
>Hurr hurr Monty Hall you'd lose a retarded game show.
I bet all of you fucking jackasses fall pray to gamblers fallacy.
>"IT WAS BLACK THE LAST 3 TIMES SO HERE'S MY LIFE SAVINGS BETTING IT ALL ON RED!"
>>71053468
>You must remember that your chosen door still has a 2/3 chance of being wrong
No.
The chance changed when the number of closed door changed.
>>71054078
> if the door you chose had 1/3 chance of having a car behind it
It's not a 1/3 chance because one of the losing doors is eliminated before the final decision is made.
It's 1/2.
If there are 2 doors to choose from, how is there 2/3 of chance.
Are people fucking retarded?
>>71054375
Care to tell me why my program is wrong?
>>71054375
Also, disprove all of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
>>71054352
Probabilities can't change though.
>>71054352
Stop being a retard dude.
You got 1/3 chance of picking the car at first right?
Answer with yes or no so I can guide you through it step by step.
>>71040918
Guys, even nobel prize winners doubt the result of this experiment.
However, after running countless simulations, the results are the same. Mathematics doesn't lie.
>>71053977
>the unequal chances of those two doors
Why are you trying to account for a losing door that you know will always be eliminated?
>>71054576
Answer me this.
A losing door will always be eliminated, yes?
>>71054375
No, you're the retard. You can verify that 2/3rds is correct (if you change doors) with a 5minute programming exercise.
>>71053946
No you fucking retard, the swap choice is conditional on your earlier choice so it is not 50/50. They are not independent events.
>>71053846
Yes
>>71054759
Different anon here, but yes.
However, your initial choice makes it so that 1/3rds of the time the host will be eliminating one of two losing doors and 2/3rds of the time will be eliminating one losing door and leaving a winning door untouched.
This is because the host's choice of doors to eliminate rests upon your initial pick of door. So in the 2/3rds of the scenarios where you pick a losing door (since you have picked one door out of three), the host must eliminate the one remaining losing door leaving the winning door for your switch.
>>71041625
Anon, you are wrong.
The chances are 2/3 against 1/3.
You choose 1/3. After the reveal of the goat the prices are behind the same door. Now you get the 2/3 chance if you switch.
>>71054689
Because you can choose a losing door in the first event you dumb nigger.
Three things can happen. Say door 1 has the prize, 2 and 3 have goats.
Pick door 1 initially, host opens one of the other two, swapping makes you lose.
Pick door 2 initially, host opens the other goat door, swapping makes you win
Pick door 3 initially, host opens the other goat door, swapping makes you win
So in 2/3 situations you win when you swap, so swapping makes you win 2/3 of the time.
>>71040918
I have a hard time following their logic..
The car is the Jewish trick. Staying gives you a greater chance of getting the goat.
t. Ahmed
Everything is 50% chance because it either happens or not.
>>71054689
Because the door that is eliminated depends on your initial choice.
There are two possible scenarios where you pick a goat and the host reveals a goat. Switching will win.
There is one scenario where you pick the prize and the host reveals a goat. Switching will lose.
Two scenarios where switching wins
Two where it loses
P(win|switch) = 2/3
If this isn't correct, then point out the flaw in my program
>>71051703
>>71051740
and in this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
>>71054689
Here's the monty hall problem with a lottery ticket equivalent so you can understand it.
At any lottery event, there are probably millions of tickets sold.
Now imagine you go to a store and buy a random lottery ticket.
After you buy it, the company who organizes the event, cancels literally ALL non-winning tickets besides yours and another one.
So at this point, the winning ticket is either yours or the other one.
Do you really think this test will yield 50% chance of you winning the lottery with your present ticket?
Isn't it obvious it's the OTHER ticket that's the winning one? (except if you actually bought the winning ticket at first, but chances of that happening are really really small)
>>71051740
>if(car == 1){
>status[0] = true;
>}
>if(car == 2){
>status[1] = true;
>}
>if(car == 3){
>status[2] = true;
>}
delete this filthy shit
kill yourself
>>71055319
That analogy isn't quite so solid, unless you become part of some contest where this will happen. If they pick two random tickets to keep (yours and the other guy's) then I wouldn't be so quick to call it the same scenario. I could be wrong, though.
>>71055402
Hey, I only took one semester learning java because I had to. It may be shitty, but if it works then I don't care.
>>71055266
>P(win|switch) = 2/3
Correct. You can literally write the decision tree of this problem on a small piece a paper and then simply count the probabilities. Never understood why people make such a drama out of this.
>>71055549
>I only took one semester learning java because I had to
good, don't post code on the internet again though
>status[car-1]=true;
>>71040918
what if i want a goat? they make good pets
>>71055744
Then stay with your initial choice.
>>71055690
>using array of bools
>instead of an integer
>>71055880
I was improving his code, you fucking bogan.
I wouldn't have even chosen fucking Java.
>>71055880
it's either a winning door or a losing door. why would you use anything but a boolean?
>>71055266
>the door that is eliminated depends on your initial choice.
Doesn't matter the initial choice. The eliminated door will always be a losing door. In which case, the initial probabilities are false as they do not incorporate this information that a losing door is always lost.
>>71055319
Ignoring the fact that if this were to happen, chances are I won and they're trying to con me out of my money, in the end it will be a 1/2 chance as that's where the ultimate choice is made.
>>71055549
We assume that there's ONE winning ticket among those right?
So if they cancel all of the non-winning tickets, then there are two outcomes
>yours is the golden one
or
>the other one is
These are two possibilities but the chance isn't 1/2 because obviously it's very rare that you'd actually bought the winning ticket to begin with.
I've been teaching math to young people for a couple of years now and they always confuse that just because there are two POSSIBILITIES, it doesn't mean they share probability.
For example:
There are two possibilities:
>a golden lion is fucking your mother right now
>a golden lion isn't fucking your mom right now
The chance of you IN REALITY actually calling your mom and her getting her anus rekt by a golden lion isn't 50% because a golden lion actually escaping from some nigger's basement in africa and hijacking a ship across the world to fuck your mom is really slim.
All this would've been easier if I knew the proper terminology to explain probability in english but I don't.
>>71056290
i don't think your example's a good one. it's a worse example than just staying with the 3 doors
You either choose the door 1 or 2, it's a new probability, it's not the same thing as when it started.
>>71056290
I just called my mom and her anus is getting rekt by a lion so yeah you're full of shit
>>71056229
uh huh yeah I'm listening
>pic
>>71056229
Hold up, I think you went full retard.
If you randomly pick a door and then open it, it's 1/3 chance of winning. But are you saying that if Monty has the intent to open a door then suddenly that 1/3 disappears magically? The initial probabilities are very much valid.
Again, why are you ignoring mathematics and instead relying on your intuition?
>>71050258
>using Java
Let's see come C code..
>>71040918
It's real but only if the host knows which door contains the prize.
>>71056060
because theyre mutually exclusive. there is one winning door, the rest are not. it also simplifies how you can choose which door is opened, and which door is selected if you change doors (after one is opened).
>>71056290
Ok define probability.
This is obviously first and biggest problem
>>71056388
Ok here's a better example.
There's one woman in this world that is your soul mate and your eternal waifu but you don't know which one.
Assuming you could pick any woman in this world, you go out of your basement and get married to a completely random girl named Mary.
Next day the all knowing God calls you and says
>Burger-san, I killed all women that weren't your meant-to-be waifus besides your current wife Mary and this other girl, Anna.
>One of these girls is your eternal waifu anon, will you stay married to Mary or choose anally abuse Anna for eternity?
Ok now Mary had 1/5 billion chance of being your waifu, so obviously chances are Anna is your waifu, so you should change wives.
Understood?
>>71056766
To follow up I went through a sperg fest with my math major girlfriend over this problem. She pointed out to me how it works. If and again IF THE HOST KNOWS WHICH DOOR HAS THE PRIZE BEHIND IT, it is legit.
Here's an example. Take the monty hall problem but make it 1000 doors. Now the host eliminates every door 998, until there are just 2 doors left. There are two possible outcomes:
>you chose the right door from the beginning
>you chose the wrong door
Out of the 1000 doors you had in the beginning to choose from, you had a 1/1000 chance of picking the right one from the very beginning. That's very unlikely. However the game show host will eliminate the remaining doors. He's not going to eliminate a door with the prize behind it on purpose so when he finally eliminates every door until there are two left, the chances are higher that you did not pick the correct door from the beginning, however the chance that the host saved the other door which does have the prize in it is certain. There's a higher chance the other door was the door with the prize.
This all relies on the host knowing which door the prize is behind from the beginning.
>>71056718
> it's 1/3 chance of winning
It's not 1/3 chance of winning if a losing door is always lost.
I'm not ignoring the math at all. I just understand that the tricks people pull with math can be inherently flawed based upon wrong perspectives.
Like the sum of all natural numbers being -1/12 type wrong.
>>71057291
Can you explain if in this scenario
>>71057096
you'd change waifus or not
>>71057382
>change waifus
More than one waifu will ruin your laifu.
>There are 1000 doors.
>your chances of picking the door with the prize behind it are 1/1000.
>you pick a door
>the hosts opens the 998 doors that do not have the price
>only 2 doors are left
>the one you picked and and another one that you didnt pick
>if u were to select again among the ramining doors, your chances of picking a winning door are 1/2
If u can't see why changing your pick in the above scenario is better then you might be retarded. Granted with only 3 doors the increase in good odds for you only increases from 1/3 to 1/2, but you should still change your pick.
Only pig headed rubes and people who don't understand mathematics choose not to change doors. Of course sometimes you will pick the correct door from the beginning and will look foolish if u lose for chaning your pick, but don't let your ego get int he way of logical, mathematical thought.
>>71057291
>Like the sum of all natural numbers being -1/12 type wrong
Except that's not what is done at all in that case. It's a completely different procedure that allows you to map that result to the sum of all natural numbers, but you do not get there by summing all natural numbers.
The Monty Hall problem is not nearly that tricky.
>>71041625
>swedish education
>>71057382
I'm not going to indulge in a blasphemous scenario. God would not play such tricks, He'd state what is required of me.
>>71057096
Mr. denbt, I think that if they don't get it by now they won't at all. They reject sound reasoning, mathematical rigor, and simulated results and instead assume the results of their own flawed intuition.
>>71057291
You know the -1/12 thing isn't wrong, right? That result (and related ones) have applications in physics such as the Casimir effect and some parts of string theory.
>>71044275
not switching is also a choice, dumbass
>>71040918
>>71041167
>>71044275
>>71044024
>>71041628
>>71042370
>>71042424
>>71042544
>>71042643
>>71043797
>>71042700
>>71042911
>>71044441
>>71044653
>>71044701
>>71044945
>>71044963
>>71045196
>>71045358
>>71045267
>>71045581
>>71047520
>>71047520
>>71045888
>>71046994
>>71048114
>>71048481
>>71048564
>>71048677
Imagine the following lottery:
There are 100 doors. Behind one of them is a prize, the rest losses.
What is the chance to win if your randomly pick one of them?
1/100
What is the chance to win if your randomly pick two of them?
2/100
What is the chance to win if you pick X of them?
x/100
Now, imagine the following lottery:
There are 100 doors. Behind one of them is a prize, the rest losses. 1 door is chosen at random. You are now given the following option, keep everything that is behind this 1 single door OR take everything that is behind the 99 other doors.
What is the more reasonable choice? Where do you have the bigger chance to win?
THIS IS PERFECTLY EQUIVALENT TO THE GOAT PROBLEM.
>>71056477
>implying the person who created that site wasn't a jew
So, what's the "problem" exactly?
>>71057291
But that door is lost AFTER the luck experiment is over.
To help you understand, imagine the host just getting rid of ALL the doors besides your own.
By your own logic, since there's only one door, there's 1/1= 100% chance you got the car.
But no, since whatever the host does to the other doors, doesn't affect the probability of your own door.
