>film has the monty hall problem
>protagonist doesn't switch
>Film explains some scientific or mathematic concept in the first half hour (Turing Test, Monty Hall Problem, Prisoner's Dialemma, whatever)
>Film acknowledges it in the last 10 minutes
>>71477039
Are you talking about 21? Is there another movie where this happens?
>>71477039
it literally doesn't matter
>protagonist doesn't switch
>protagonist is really good at math
>>71477039
It doesn't matter. His chances are the same.
>amerifats fell for the 'you should always switch meme'
why are ameridumbs so bad at math?
>film introduces chaos theory
>explains butterfly effect as an actual phenomenon
>>71477260
Mathematically, objectively, demonstrably, false
For the normies do the same principle with 100 doors and it makes more sense.
>>71477312
I'm talking about the real world
>>71477270
>being this much of a nerd that you know or care when a movie "explains the butterfly effect as an actual phenomenon"
give up anon
![hqdefault[5].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TYO6kE8.jpg "hqdefault[5].jpg")
>>71477270
>Science teacher shows "The Butterfly Effect 2" during class
I still, to this day, do not understand why.
>>71477195
The Last Crusade.
Indy chooses the plain cup as the Holy Grail; Donovan's choice reveals that one of the more ornate cups is not the Holy Grail; Indy does not switch and his choice is correct.
>>71477587
He was hung over. Literally the only reason you had surprise movie days in class.
>>71477428
>>71477312
Why doesn't the chances fo your choice of door also go up with the door you didn't choose? Wouldn't they both go to 50%?
>>71477668
Is that really the monty hall problem though? Indy chose the plain cup on an informed guess, not just at random.
If all the potential grails were identical you would have a point.
100% chance to check em >>71477777
>>71477857
Because when you chose it you had a 1/3 chance. Once monty shows you whats behind a door you are weighing a 1/3 chance for a 1/2 chance at winning the prize.
Its supposed to be nonintuitive.
>>71477946
That makes as much sense as the people that try to explain 1+2=4 or whatever the stupid shit it. He chances for both doors go up to 50% regardless of what happened beforehand. Knowing 1 false door changes nothing. Fuck anyone that believes in switching, you chose that door for a reason now fucking stick with it faggot.
>>71478033
You're right. This well documented and proven statistical fact is not true after all because you can't understand it.
>>71478033
It's demonstrable in practice that you win more often by switching, look it up before posting like a retard.
>>71478033
You have more of a chance of picking the wrong door when there are 3, That's why you switch when there are two.
Simple enough, nigger?
>>71478696
It's about 18 minutes of spider man flinging web all over lady boy's in Thailand, very out of place.
>>71478696
But if the other door now has a 50% chance of being right, it means you also have a 50% chance being right in sticking with your door. The probability does go up, but for both doors
Okay which Film actually features the Monty Hall problem?
>>71477857
M8 all you need to understand is that your first choice was probably wrong. The first time you pick there's 2 goats and 1 car, so you probably picked a goat.
So you most likely picked a goat, then they reveal the other goat, car is probably behind the other door then and you should switch. Won't always work because sometimes you did pick the car the first time but usually you didn't.
Understanding that your first choice was probably a goat is all you really need to get to see how its right to switch.
>>71478887
Wrong. If you started at two doors, then yes it would be 50/50. However the three doors are valuable information that change the odds.
>>71478962
Where does the rest of the percentage go then?
>>71479002
You're making this more complicated than it is.
Your first choice was probably a goat, that is why you switch. That's all there is to it.
>>71478887
Let's say you have the same problem, but with 100 doors. The host opens 98 of the doors, and the host will never open the door with the prize behind it. Do you switch to the one door you didn't pick or stay with your first choice?
Same idea but it only improves your odds of winning by 33%
>>71479066
This
If you pick a goat at the beginning and switch you are guaranteed to get a car.
If you pick a car at the beginning and you switch you get the goat.
So what are the chances you get a goat?
>>71477039
>Implying you need to change
If you were right, you were right.
does this account for if they switch shit behind the doors depending on your choice?
Scenario one: You pick the car. Host reveals a goat. You change doors and lose.
Scenario two. You pick goat 1. Host reveals goat 2. You change doors to win the car.
Scenario three: You pick goat 2. Host reveals goat 1. You change doors to win the car.
2/3 times you win when you change doors.
You're only going to win 1/3 times if you don't.
Understand now?
>>71479218
But you can't know if you were right and if you're not a moron you can see your first choice is probably wrong.
There's 2 goats and 1 car so your first guess you probably pick a goat, then he reveals the other goat, gee I wonder where the car could be?
YO THIS IS BULLSHIT. WHEN LEFT WITH TWO DOORS. YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES.
>CHOOSE THE DOOR YOU PICKED : 50%
>CHOOSE THE SECOND DOOR : 50 %
Ergo, it changes nothing.
>>71479317
>Implying I'm unlucky as you
>>71479188
This is the best explanation I've seen. I'm not entirely sold, but this makes enough sense that if I were in the situation, I'd switch
>when the door 1 was chosen by the player: the host's deliberate action adds value to the door he did not choose to eliminate, but not to the one chosen by the contestant originally. Another insight is that switching doors is a different action than choosing between the two remaining doors at random, as the first action uses the previous information and the latter does not. Other possible behaviors than the one described can reveal different additional information, or none at all, and yield different probabilities.
sure is lots of assumptions on why the host opened the door
>>71479279
Scenario one : After picking one out of three choice, only a car and a goat remain. You choose to switch : it's a car !!
Scenario two : After picking one out of three choice, only a car and a goat remain. You choose to switch : it's a goat !!
Scenario three : After picking one out of three choice, only a car and a goat remain. You choose to not switch : it's a goat !!
Scenario four : After picking one out of three choice, only a car and a goat remain. You choose to not switch : it's a car !!
Now let's add up those %. 2 : 2. 50 %. WHatever you choose to do once a door has been opened has no bearing on your actual chances to get something.
>>71479188
50/50
>>71477039
Name 5 kinos, 3 flicks, 16 cinemas, and 45 joints where this happens.
>>71479463
Two doors have goats one has a car.
What are the chances you pick a goat?
>>71479446
Your first choice is a goat 2/3 times that's why you should switch anon.
>>71479480
It has no bearings on anything since you make a new choice.
>>71479511
But it does have bearing because you know your first choice was probably a goat.
It's a 50% chance, idiots. Either you pick the car or you don't.
>>71479492
Irrelevant since no matter what you actually end up doing, you make a new choice.
>>71479511
You don't make a new choice.
You don't randomly pick a new door.
The host opens a door with a goat.
He never opens a door with a car.
You don't get another choice between two doors.
You get a changed choice of switching or staying after the host removed a failure.
>>71479547
But that's irrelevant. You shouldn't see it as "keeping your choice". You should see it as choosing one out of two door.
>>71479551
pretty much
this is just probability meming WE IZ REAL SCIENCE
>>71479560
"switching". Aka, choose door 2. Or choose not to choose door 2 and go with door 1.
>>71479480
MEESA SO CONFUSED
more important question
what is the probability of the host showing one wrong door to fuck with the player?
>Monty hall problem
>implying the theoretical problem wasn't an autistic solution to a theoretical problem that didn't actually exist
The show withe the problem would have had a different answer than the perfect Monty hall problem dictates
Furthermore 99% of the "Monty hall problems" are not the real problem.
Read the Wikipedia article on it and it becomes evident the mathematician who made it into a big deal was just being autistic
>>71479603
Yes but switching depends on the first door choice.
Switching guarantees you get the opposite of your first choice.
And the chance to get a goat as your first choice is 2/3.
>>71479511
The host knows what's behind all of the doors and what door he offers to let you switch to depends on what's behind the door you picked originally. Namely, Monty's door has to be the prize door unless you picked the prize door on the first attempt, in which case the door would have to be a goat.
It's not a "new" choice because the door you get offered to switch to is dependent on your first choice.
>>71479677
You should look up at what "switching" actually means in term of concrete action. It's actually choosing a new door, or not choosing the new door. It's no different than the choice the person had when there were three doors.
>If we assume the host opens a door at random, when given a choice, then which door the host opens gives us no information at all as to whether or not the car is behind door 1.
Only when the decision is completely randomized is the chance 2/3.
based wikipedia for the truth
>>71479722
It's not though, since, whatever you pick, one door will be opened (which won't have the "car").
ITT people who can't into bayesian probability
>>71479068
This is really the best way to make sense of it intuitively. I refused to believe the Monty Hall problem until I actually ran a simulation of it.
>>71479603
The door that is left is dependent on the door you initially pick. This means that your initial pick has a bearing on the second "choice".
Here's a slightly different scenario: imagine that you are given the same initial choice of picking a door. The host then still reveals one of the goat doors. However, this time you're never given a choice to switch or not, instead the host forces you to take the leftover door, the one that wasn't picked by your nor revealed. What are the odds this one contains the car? The key is that because a goat is always revealed during the reveal step, the final dilemma is guaranteed between a car and a goat. If your initial choice was a goat, then a switch guarantees a car, and the converse is true (picking the car initially guarantees a goat). You had a 2/3 chance of picking a goat initially, so in this scenario where the host forces you to switch and there is no second "choice" you will get a car 2/3 of the time. The principle can be applied to the real problem: if you set your default mindset to always switch regardless of what is revealed (i.e., you're forcing yourself to switch and eliminating the notion of a second choice), then you will land on a car 2/3 of the time.
>>71479317
That's fucking stupid.
>>71477266
Computer simulations have demonstrated that switching is objectively the best choice.
>>71479742
But in this situation switching means you always get the opposite of your first choice.
You understand it so far do you?
It is because the host does not open a random door. He always opens a goat door.
Imagine watching the game from the other side and knowing what is behind all doors.
I don't know how I could further help you understand it.
>Schrödinger's cat
>>71477252
maybe he was feelin' real lucky
>>71477587
I'm so sorry. Butterfly Effect 2 is dramatically worse than both the first one and BE 3, and neither of those are really "good".
>>71479492
It doesn't fucking matter because 1/2 goat remains.
Always switch.
Here's an example that makes this problem and solution MUCH clearer.
Imagine FIVE HUNDRED doors instead of three. There is a prize behind just one of these doors.
You pick one of the 500 doors. The remaining 498 doors are removed, the door with the prize is still left. Switching now is almost guaranteed to get you the prize. The first time you picked, the chance to pick the prize was very slim, 1/500.
Now imagine this with 3 doors and the logic is still the same as with 500 doors.
>>71479803
>The door that is left is dependent on the door you initially pick
It's not tough, since whatever you pick, one door will be opened and one door will be left open.
Let's run it out.
Scenario 1 : Pick Door C (for CAR) : Host choose door A, door B has a Goat.
Scenario 2 : Same one but he chooses door B. Also a goat.
Scenario 3 : U pick Door A. Host opens Door B : GOAT
Scenario 4 : U pick Door B, Host opens door A : GOAT.
ADD IT UP.. In TWO scenarios you are left with Door A. And in the two other scenarios, you are left with Door B. 2 : 2. Whatever you pick, you have the same chance of having Door A or B left.
>>71479803
No. See. In your hypothesis you don't have a choice.
>>71480044
top b8 m8
>>71477587
Hey. At least you got some hot Erica Durance moments.
>>71479823
No that's you
>>71480010
You picked a goat, they showed the other goat, remaining door is the car unless you picked the car the first time but you probably didn't because there were 2 goats then and only 1 car.
Switching does not guarantee a win but it does give you the best chance.
>>71478033
Its simple:
You start with 3 doors and make a random choice. You did not "choose that door for a reason". The doors are identical and you have no information to work with.
The host opens one door, revealing a goat. There are now only two options. What is important, however, is to consider why he opened the door he did.
The host knows where the prize is. He would only open one of the two goat doors. However, he cannot choose the door you have chosen because then the question "Would you like to switch doors?" would not make sense.
The host made a conscious choice not to eliminate one of the doors, but was obligated not to choose your door. The fact that he knows where the prize is and chose not to open the door you did not choose means it has a greater probability of concealing the prize.
>>71478696
This is not why switching is a better choice. If that were so, switching and not switching would be functionally identical actions.
>2016
>there are still people who don't understand the Monty Hall problem
no wonder the world is getting conquered by chinks and goat fuckers
>>71480117
>You picked a goat
No, I picked a car.
>>71480044
You're conflating that each of those scenarios has the same probability of happening, but they're not. You have a 1/3 chance of picking each door, so scenarios 3 and 4 each have a 1/3 chance of happening. Scenarios 1 and 2, however, need to combine to have a 1/3 chance of happening, because your choice (picking door C) is the same as picking the other doors. The way you have it set-up is that scenarios 1 and 2 both have a 1/6 chance of happening.
>>71480090
Show me where there's a mathematical difference between the host forcing you to switch and yourself forcing you to switch.
>>71480168
I think I understand it but it's wrong because it's assuming the host choice to open a wrong door is truly random
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#Simple_solutions
The table here explains it the best, if you can't figure it out after reading that then you need to go back to school.
>>71480168
You have yet to prove why, when you make the second choice, it's as if your first choice had any relevancy. You sound like one of those dumbfuck playing roulettes saying: IT HAS BEEN RED 8 TIMES ALREADY, NEXT TIME WILL BE BLACK. IT HAS TO".
New Monty Hall problem:
You're the host of a game show. There are 100 doors, one of which has a prize behind it. A contestant picks door 76 at random. You know the prize is behind Door 1. You must now pick a door to offer to the contestant for him to possibly switch to. The catch? It has to be the door with the prize behind it.
Which door do you pick?
The real issue here is if the host is going to open a door anyways why don't they just do it before you make your first guess? Its the only fair way of doing it.
>>71480194
Nope, you are wrong here, since the host has to open one of the wrong door, he can pick either door in scenario 1 (and 2). Which, have the same probability of happening. BUT, scenario 3 and 4 have the same probability of happening. If you add up scenario 1 and 4, the probability of it happening is EQUAL to the sum of scenario 2 and 3.
>>71480225
there are like 8 people in here who have already demonstrated why switching is preferable, and you can even simulate yourself if you don't understand them
>>71480335
You have yet to refute anything. People spouting bs they read somewhere but are unable to actually explain it is meaningless.
>>71480330
Whatever the host does is dependent on what you pick first. It's only your initial pick that matters, what the host does is irrelevant because you'll switch from a goat to a car or from a car to a goat.
>>71480206
The whole point of the problem is that it ISN'T assuming that. The value of the switch is based on understanding that the host knows where the car is and makes an informed decision regarding which door to open. The fact that he didn't choose the door you didn't choose makes it more likely to be the car door.
>>71480384
As I've shown you, what the host does is actually NOT dependent on what you do. Whatever you choose, he will always open either door A or B.
>>71480225
Because whether or not Monty offers you the prize door is directly fucking related to the chance that you already picked said prize door. In the one in three chance that you did, Monty's door will have the goat. In the two in three chance that you were wrong, Monty's door will have the prize.
Monty does not actually get to make a decision. The first choice completely dictates his actions.
>>71480385
but the host doesn't have to open a door
>>71480412
It absolutely is dependent because he can't open your door. If he did, the question of whether or not you wanted to switch would be moot and the whole scenario couldn't exist.
>>71480412
It doesn't matter which door he opens, he always reveals a goat. You're not trying to choose a particular door, you're trying to pick a reward behind the door.
It's far more intuitive if you imagine there are 100 doors. You pick one, and the host eliminates 98 of the doors that don't have a car. Which is more likely; that you picked the correct door out of 100, or that you now pick the correct door out of two? Obviously you would swap.
>>71480506
yall niggers adding more numbers aren't helping us stupid people
>>71480506
Or 97*, whatever. It doesn't really matter how many
>>71480467
Yes, that's why he will open Door A or B. Ine one scenario, that has a 1/3 chance of happening, he can choose either one, in the two other he has to pick A or B.
>>71480539
You must be phenomenally stupid to not understand that. He says it in plain fucking english. What are better odds, 1/100 or 1/2?
>>71480459
Him opening a door is the entire basis of the scenario.
When someone presents you with the door guardian riddle, do you say "They don't have to guard the doors"?
100 Doors a given
You choose 1
Host opens the 98 other wrong doors
Do you switch or are you still a retard?
>>71480375
>People spouting bs they read somewhere
Except it isn't BS, it's a proper solution that you either can't understand or refuse to believe for some reason. If you want a formal mathematical proof you can look up the wikipedia article yourself.
>>71480579
is human nature random?
>>71480506
This scenerio actually helpped a lot in me unserstanding it. Any doors more than 3 you want to switch.
How has this thread not been closed? Monty Hall is up there with .999… for most banned discussion topic on the internet.
>>71480375
>being this stubborn and stupid
Great combination there buddy.
>>71480506
*or that you now pick the correct door out of ninety eight?
>>71480558
Which door the host opens is dependent on your choice and he won't reveal the car. Therefore:
1. If you picked the car door, he's making a 50/50 choice.
2. If you picked a goat door, he is forced to open the other goat door.
Whether those doors are A/1, B/1, or C/3 is completely irrelevant. I don't know where you're pulling this "He always opens A or B" shit from.
>>71480640
We're not Reddit.
>>71480689
From here >>71480044
>>71480689
*B/2
>>71480584
Yea that's where I got confused
>>71480692
Yes you are.
>>71480539
Okay, imagine this you fucking moron: you go to the store and pick up a lottery ticket. The next day, some guy comes up to you with two tickets and says "one of these is the winning ticket" and offers to trade one of his tickets for yours. Assuming he isn't full of shit, would you trade for one of his tickets?
>>71480650
>Stubborn and stupid
>When you can't even show why the "Switching actually means choosing, or choosing not to choose".
>>71480773
Yes, because it's almost certain your ticket will lose. But I don't see how this applies to Monty Hall.
>>71480773
Why are you so worked up?
I don't gamble so this hypothetical isn't possible.
Is this the kind of shit people who went to college do every day? I enjoyed reading up on this tons as I had never heard of it. How can I better myself tv?
>>71480539
Don't try to break down the probabilities. The point of adding more numbers is just to show that the choice to switch isn't a 50-50 choice between two random doors. If you pick a random fucking door out of a billion and then the host picks a door, and guarantees that one of you has picked the door with the prize behind it, who do you think has the prize door? Your dumb ass or the guy who knows what's behind all the doors?
>>71480806
It's the exact same situation, just with a smaller difference in winning odds. Imagine 1000 doors instead of 3. Honestly the fact that you can't wrap your head around this is fucking embarassing
>>71480806
How fucking retarded are you?
One of the 3 tickets IN THIS SCENARIO is GUARANTEED to be the winning ticket
Do you trade your ticket with one of his?
>>71480834
It's not about knowing. You can add and open as many door as you want. The end result is you having to choose between two doors. 50/50 choice.
>>71480823
>haha i was le trolling the entire time! epic!
>>71480725
You fundamentally don't understand probability. Two scenarios lead to him choosing the door he chooses. One of them is random and the other is dependent on the door you picked being a goat door.
There is a 50/50 chance that his choice of door is motivated by you picking a goat door. If it isn't, you gain no insight and have nothing to lose by switching. If it is, it is to your benefit to switch. Therefore when looking at the problem as a whole, switching is to your benefit because it either has no effect or a positive effect. Not switching can only have no effect.
>>71480806
Its the same application just on a smaller scale. 3 doors is the litteral smallest scale they can go with removing one and giving you a choice to switch and thats why it is hard to notice a difference.
>>71480900
>>71480900
Or a positive effect since you choose to choose the door with the car. So, no effect, or a positive effect vs no effect or a positive effect. Same shit.
>>71480853
>>71480866
>Exact same scenario
>Guy says one of his will win, not that yours could
>Guy is offering you a choice between three of the tickets (yours, one of his, another one of his)
>Both yours and his could still win because that's how the lottery works
>Exact
>Same
>Scenario
>>71480964
>Guy says one of his will win, not that yours could
One of these three tickets you braindead cuck. Jesus christ
>>71480952
No you idiot, you're assuming that there's some inherent value to your original choice. That switching and then not winning the car means you made a foolish choice.
Even if you don't win the car, if you switched you still had a higher chance of finding it.
>>71480506
But why the fuck the first choice matters? I understand mathematically, 1/3 vs 1/2 but why in the name of fuck would it matter.
When you decide to change your door it's still 1/2 no matter if you do or if you don't.
What if upon opening a door, your choice was reset, and you had to pick again, and you picked the same door.
How does it differ, practically not theoretically.
>>71480692
>memes related to TDKR are banned
>classic ubb troll threads with absolutely no relevance to film are okay
>>71481077
The first choice matters because that's what you're comparing the second choice to, in order to figure out whether your odds are better. What the fuck is wrong with you dude?
Why can't we just accept that people who think it is 50/50 are retarded?
Why does everyone try to explain it to them?
They are provably wrong.
They do not understand it.
Its like explaining colors to a blind person.
>>71480832
>Is this the kind of shit people who went to college do every day?
No, that would be drinking.
This is the kind of think professional programmers who skipped college do everyday.
>>71481062
Maybe next time make it more clear. It's still a retarded example that doesn't adequately show why switching is best choice for Monty Hall.
>>71481077
If you first chose a goat, then you will always switch to a car.
If you first chose a car, then you will always switch to a goat.
You were more likely to pick a goat first, which is why switching is the best option.
>>71481113
But only two doors remain.
Alright, idiots who didn't pass high school statistics, I made a chart for you. If it still isn't clear, you're beyond help.
>>71481205
just go to the wikipedia article
these fags are being ambiguous so they can feel superior
>>71481116
>Why can't we just accept that people who think it is 50/50 are retarded?
Because most of them actually aren't. There were actual professors of mathematics that didn't get it.
>>71477039
>film features Rocko's basalisk.
>main character doesn't instantly devote his life to it.
>>71481255
>these fags are being ambiguous
Are you for real? It is actually impossible to explain this more clearly
>>71481211
I don't think high school stats teaches bayesian decision trees
>>71481116
I am slowly realizing this. I don't understand how people, when presented with literal mathematical fact and a simple explanation of why the numbers are what they are, still can't comprehend it.
I'm beginning to think that crap Joe Rogan says about some people lacking real consciousness might be true.
>>71481262
Are you sure that is not some myth?
Seems like that is somebody embellishing the story of the monty hall problem.
>reddi/tv/ is filled with retarded children
Not surprised desu.
>>71481077
Because if you pick the prize door, Monty will offer you a goat door. If you pick a goat door, Monty will offer you the prize door. Those are the only possibilities. It's not a random choice. And because you're more likely to have picked a goat door, you're more likely to win by switching to Monty's door.
>>71481304
Mine did, and I don't see why any class wouldn't. They're very simple to make, and they're enormously helpful for visualizing situations like this.
>>71481211
Another way to look at it:
You're going from 3 choices to 2, but they're saying it's now either the door you picked, or 1 other door.
Suppose it was 4 doors, narrowed to 2. Would you switch?
Suppose it was 100 doors, narrowed to 2, would you switch?
The answer is yes every time, it's just more obvious when you start with more doors. When in doubt make the numbers bigger and it will be more obvious.
Montyfags on suicide watch.
>le monty hall troll
>honest bro it makes sense to switch it's just maths :)
fuck off with this meme
>>71481319
I read about it in a university stats class and it was hotly debated. It took them actually running a computer sim to make people accept that switching was a superior choice.
>>71481381
But literally all you have to do is replace 3 doors with 100 and 1 door revealed with 98 doors revealed.
Only an idiot wouldn't be able to understand it then.
name one game show where the host is obligated to show you a wrong door
This is the test that splits autists and normal people.
Autists thinks the math matters in a fucking contest where you either win or don't win a car.
>>71478194
that's not how mathematics work though
they don't need to be proven experimentally
People who don't understand the Monty Hall problem are literal idiots who can't fathom looking at a problem from a different angle, and can't figure out that the odds of your first choice being right never changes, regardless of how many other doors you open.
They simply refuse to accept this because of their stubbornness, so it's not worth entertaining any of their retarded arguments
>>71481423
Eh. I think changing the scenario that much is going to naturally make people question the validity of what you're saying.
>>71479068
>the host will never open the door with the prize behind it
This is not implied in the original statement.
>>71477039
You blew it, and you blew it big! Since you seem to have difficulty grasping the basic principle at work here, I'll explain. After the host reveals a goat, you now have a one-in-two chance of being correct. Whether you change your selection or not, the odds are the same. There is enough mathematical illiteracy in this country, and we don't need the world's highest IQ propagating more. Shame!
>>71477039
>protagonist switches, declaring it's the smartest thing to do
>ends up being wrong anyways
>>71481455
But in this case the can.
>>71481505
Name one movie where this happens.
>>71481488
It's not changing the scenario at all, though. You pick a door, the host opens almost every wrong door. The one you picked has a 1/100 chance of being right, and the other one has a 99/100 chance of being right.
>>71481536
army of darkness
>>71481536
One of the Saw movies.
>>71477039
This is not a mathematical thing.
It's a psychological thing.
Everything has 50% of probability because it either happens or not.
>>71481211
Look at this you retards, it explains it perfectly.
>>71481455
It's easier to imagine if we increase the number of doors. Say we have 100 doors. You pick 1. This has a 1/100 chance of being the right door. Then all of the other doors are removed but 1. You know that it's either the door you picked or the other one. If you picked the wrong door then the other door HAS to be right. Meaning that while your door you picked is 1/100 the other door is 99/100.
So when you swap when there are three doors your chances are 1/2 where if you stay they are 1/3.
The whole point of it is to be unintuitive.
>>71481552
That's not really true though. The value of the insight you gain from the host's choice diminishes the more doors there are.
>>71481499
if the host opens the door with the prize behind it you have 100% chance of getting a goat no matter what choice you make…
>>71481455
That doesn't mean experimental/simulation can't be used to verify this shit. Bear in mind that we're just a bunch of chucklefucks on a Vietnamese Emoji Chatlog who are just talking out of our ass. Actual mathematicians who went to school have studied this and concluded that switching is always better. The fact that experimental stuff verifies all this is just gravy.
>>71477039
>game has monty hall problem
>new protagonist cucks the hero of the previous game with his childhood crush
>its a /tv/ tries to think with their meme-damaged brain episode
>>71481602
exactly
The first door you pick is LITERALLY irrelevant. It has no bearing on the second door, as the first door's outcome is always the same and can be discarded
The calculation of this is all relative to whether you count the first, irrelevant door or just the one choice that actually matters
>>71481591
yeah, which is why the probability of switching giving you a car is only 2/3 instead of 99/100REEEEEEEEEE
Everybody knows switching gives you 2/3rds chance of winning because it's essentially betting against your original choice. EVERYBODY.
Monty Hall threads are just full of trolls trying to come up with dumb arguments to piss pseudo-intellectuals off. Stop feeding them.
>>71480506
Have you never watched Deal or No Deal?
The fact you survived for that long makes it likely you did actually pick correctly
>>71481653
I demand bane related monty hall memes to get this thread shuttered
>>71481709
>If I switch doors, will I get a car?
>It would be extremely likely
>Monty Hall is a big guy
>U U U U
>>71481455
But you can prove mathematics with experiments. Suppose you have 2 apples. Now I take one apple. If you were to count them you'd count 1. See? Subtraction works.
Judging from your stance on the Monty Hall problem you are probably not gonna understand this though, so here's the wikipedia page on subtraction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtraction
>>71481696
No, it doesn't. If you get down to the last 2 boxes with a dollar and 500k, it's still a 50/50 choice.
>>71481763
that's not a simulation it's a word problem and has nothing to do with probability. you can't definitely prove a probability problem through simulation.
>>71481204
>>71481343
Why has no one noticed the people getting it right?
Scenario one : After picking one out of three choice, only a car and a goat remain. You choose to switch : it's a car !!
Scenario two : After picking one out of three choice, only a car and a goat remain. You choose to switch : it's a goat !!
Scenario three : After picking one out of three choice, only a car and a goat remain. You choose to not switch : it's a goat !!
Scenario four : After picking one out of three choice, only a car and a goat remain. You choose to not switch : it's a car !!
Now let's add up those %. 2 : 2. 50 %. WHatever you choose to do once a door has been opened has no bearing on your actual chances to get something.
>>71481835
because >>71481694
>people still dont understand this
jesus christ just picture it with more doors
if you did it with 100 doors and didnt switch after he opened 98 others, you are saying you are confident the first door you picked was right, which means you are pretty fucking dumb
>>71481694
but consider it this way: if you switch and you lose anyways, you'll feel a lot worse than if you didn't switch and lost
you also have to consider the emotional costs of losing in either scenario, not just the prize itself
>>71481375
underrated post, anon
>>71481782
EXACTLY
a 50/50 choice
not a 99/100 choice
that's abstract bullshittery
>literally just get off /sci/
>feels like i'm still on /sci/ because it's an "anons posts an unintuitive probability question" episode
Fuck sake people, this is covered in an intro to probability class and there's experimental data if you're a moron and don't trust the math.
>he still believes in free will
lel
>>71481863
>if i keep posting the bait someone might bite!
>>71480284
>You know the prize is behind Door 1
>You must now pick a door to offer to the contestant for him to possibly switch to.
>Which door do you pick?
you're stupid
>>71481863
Imagine a six sided die. Two of the sides read 1, two of the sides read 2, one side reads 3, and one side reads 4. You want to roll a 3 or 4.
Scenario one: you roll a 1
Scenario two: you roll a 2
Scenario three: you roll a 3
Scenario four: you roll a 4
Now let's add up those. There are four scenarios, which means each scenario has 25% chance of happening, which means you have a 50% chance of rolling what you want.
Switching changes nothing. Don't give a fuck how many times its "explained" to me, fucking stat Jews
Now I see why /tv/ is one of the worst boards on this bloody shithole of a site.
>>71482020
Ahem >>71482060
>>71482052
this is why the entire premise of the monty hall problem is stupid as fuck. There would never be a game show set up where the host has to reveal every incorrect door.
>>71482071
literally /b/ tier
>>71482068
It doesn't need to be explained to you. You're clearly not college educated, or if you're in the process of being college educated, then you're not in STEM because you lack skills in basic math.
Point is, there is both simulations and hard experimental data that demonstrably proves that you are better off switching.
Look, either you'll get the car or not, it's 50/50.
>>71482098
95%
excluding a bizarre situation like you know it's exactly 1% and the population is 100 people and you know someone else is sick or something like that
>>71482098
This is another intro to probability question. You can mindlessly apply Bayes theorem for the solution.
>>71481211
you don't get it.
you pick any door, and they will reveal a goat in other door.
you will know about a losing door after you pick.
>>71482105
bigger image
>>71477266
>>71478033
Just look at the top, it's simple math.
The whole point with the problem is psychology after the math is proven
because:
1) The contestant overvalues his door pick even though now he has a 1/3 gamble instead of 1/2 if he were to switch
2) The contestant thinks the host is trying to discourage the contestant from picking door 1 by showing the goat behind door 3 because he believes the host knows the car is behind door 1 and is trying to prevent the show from losing money.
The whole point is that you will not choose what's right good for you, and Monty Hall problem is often compared to prisoner's dilemma.
>>71482098
>>71482218
It's about 16% and some change
>>71482258
>prisoners dilemma
I saw a documentary where they tested this on a secretaries and they proved it wrong.
>>71482238
2 and 3 are LITERALLY the same thing
it's a 50/50
>>71482258
>1) The contestant overvalues his door pick even though now he has a 1/3 gamble instead of 1/2 if he were to switch
1/2 implies the chance is fifty fifty which is the source of confusion. This is better picture.
>>71480579
Are you sure you even understand? Your odds after eliminating 98 doors wouldn't be 1/2, it would be 99/100.
>>71482332
It's literally not. Some secretaries? How about you actually read up on how easy people snitch on each other when confronted with jailtime.
1 documentary case does not disprove a problem that persists today and will go on forever
>>71482359
Yes, sorry I meant 2/3. I'm posting in different threads so I just switched back.
>>71482336
you know there is a mathematical proof right? The goat and door thing is just for normies to understand
>>71479905
maybe he wanted the goat
>>71479676
>a theoretical problem that didn't actually exist
Except on the game show where it did.
>>71482336
Two and 3 are different outcomes. Order matters in this type of question. If you understand things from basic combinatorics like factorials and binomial coefficients, then you would understand this.
>>71482098
>>71478194
That's just luck
>>71482431
I cannot drive car on sand. Goat give nutritious milk and nighttime intimacy.
>>71482421
maybe criminals with low moral fiber
not good people
>>71482486
>math
>luck
go back to
>>>/tg/
>>71482525
yes that's why it's called prisoner's dilemma.
But it still applies to people you've met, you just don't trust them.
Go watch those normie reality shows with the money ball, even though they sleep with each other and cry together they STILL betray the other one just to get the money
>>71482454
Read the rest retard
The Monty hall problem as shown on TV has a different probability
The mathematical scenario proposed by the autist is a made up perfect scenario that requires a shit load of assumptions.
The exceptions section of the Wikipedia page makes it obvious that the problem needs to be carefully specified.
It also shows everyone being smug pretentious cunts by relying on authority rather than their own logical construction
Short way: You can only pick one door from the red square (you don't know which door has the car and the goat)
>Here's James, engineer from MIT, and he picked door number one. Now, James, we have just seen door number two has a goat, would you like to switch or keep your choice?
>I will switch Monty, thank you very much.
>It's number three then. Aaaaand... it's a goat! I'm sorry James
>B-b-b-but MUH MATH!
>Sorry James, although it's mathematically proven that you made the right statistical choice, in this case you won because of bad luck, sorry.
>FUCK REAL LIFE NOOOOO
>>71482677
I hope you never play poker because you would get absolutely destroyed
>>71482576
eye for an eye and the whole world is blind
>>71482677
>Door 2
>switches
>MIT grad
Nah, he's just a dumb nigger
>If you do it with 500 doors it's more obvious!
But we're only doing it with one door.
>Do it 500 times and it's clear!
But we're only doing it once.
>>71482806
500 times to prove the probability so that the idiot understands.
>>71482806
This is what autists don't get. It's hilarious how they try to make it more and more complex since they can't comprehend real life.
>>71482359
This one picture helped to explain it to me better than words could.
>>71482806
Hows minimum wage manual labor, friend?
>>71482806
It doesn't change one door.
All these other examples are just there to help idiots understand it.
I say we should just let the retards behind.
And give them goats to fuck so they don't spread their genes.
>>71482656
>>71482841
even this is better for 50 IQ retards
3 options and you get the 2/3 if you switch
>>71482656
this.
it doesn't matter what you pick first
it doesn't matter if they reveal one goat
the real game starts after you can "switch"
makes it a 50/50
Would you rather pick 1 of 3 doors where 1 is a car and the other goats, or 1 out of 2 doors when it's one of each?
Staying is 33% winning and switching gives you 50%.
>>71482926
This game is not memoryless. The host does not RANDOMLY open a door. The game starting after you can switch is STILL DEPENDENT on previous conditions.
>>71482975
>The host does not RANDOMLY open a door
the host will open a goat door, no matter what you pick.
then you can choose again goat-door or car-door.
>>71482926
no it fucking doesn't.
Look at this image.
The only time when switching is costing you, is when you actually landed on the car.
That's 1/3 compared to 2/3 when you haven't landed on the car
>>71478942
See, but that's fucking stupid. Sure, probability wise, you could have chosen the goat, but again, this is real life, and the fact still remains that you could have chosen the car. I don't even understand the meme of switching.
>/tv/ attempts high-school level probability
Lmao.
>>71483034
The point is that that goat door opening is not random, therefor you cannot treat your probability in the 2 door pick on a random variable at that point. You are dependent on initial conditions. That's the point that these 500 door examples are trying to show. The host opening 498 doors is an attempt to elucidate that the doors that the host opens are not random.
>>71479463
Think of it this way; assuming you always switch doors. Ignore the fact that he opens a door for a moment.
If you pick a goat, you win. If you pick the car, you lose. What's the chance to get a goat? 2/3.
Monty opening the door doesn't "change the odds" to 50/50. You had a 2/3 chance of getting a goat the first time and you still have a 2/3 chance of having one. Monty opening a door and showing a goat doesn't tell you anything new - you already know two doors had goats, so nothing changes.
Or, to break it down: assume the car is behind door C
Pick A -> switch to C = Win
Pick B -> switch to C = Win
Pick C -> switch to arbitrary A or B = Lose
>>71477039
What would he have done if she chose the car as her first choice?
http://youtu.be/P9WFKmLK0dc
Drop Spaghetti?
>>71482677
Nobody, anywhere, ever, has asserted that switching will guarantee you a car. It's a given that there will always be a possibility of failure. But since you only get one shot, you will want to make the action that will give you the best chance of winning, which is what this has all been about. Statistical analysis and experimental data shows that switching is the most likely way to win, but it has never been said to guarantee you will win, and everybody who accepts this also acknowledges and accepts the 1/3 chance that they get it wrong. I'm questioning what the point of your post is.
>>71483073
>Sure, probability wise, you could have chosen the goat, but again, this is real life, and the fact still remains that you could have chosen the car
Reread what you just fucking wrote and think about it. You are trying to say that discrete probabilistic models, based on set theory do not apply in real life for some reason. You are trying to argue that you should not pick the decision that is on average advantageous, based on some divine notion that it could be the other thing.
>>71482763
>Randomly opens
The point is that he always opens another goat and never reveals the car. Otherwise losing will immediately become 100%
