INB4
> I want a goat
> I'm a Muslim
> door 2 is the goats ass

>>679638929
Stay im winning a goat anyway since theres no way a car is fitting behind that door

>>679639099
Does your garage have a door?
If so there's no way a car could be on the other side.

>>679639318
And OP is correct, you should always switch

Doesn't matter either way so it's 50%

Retard math. This is for those dumbass kids in high school who always correct you with "Technically" and cant do anything past their retarded formulas and refuse to learn anything else or think for their own selves. Sit down and think about why the "Real Answer" makes no damn sense and it doesnt matter what you pick.

>>679640328
No, you're just retarded.
No outcome from a choice of three can be 50%.
That should be obvious.

File: 294395-nerd.jpg (17 KB, 339x306) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 339x306

>>679640328
Algebraically speakings.. *Snort*

>>679640492
Nice bait.

You have a slightly higher chance of getting a car if you switch doors if I am correct?

What am I gonna do with a car ?
At least I can fuck the goat.

>>679640492
Say you had 3 cups to pick from
1 has $20
The other 2 have nothing
Cup A has been told by the person doing the shuffling that it has twice the chance of the rest of having the $20

Therefore Cup A has a 50% chance
The other 2 have a 25% chance.

Your assumption that 50% cannot be attained from 3 options is incorrect

>>679640631
> bait
Oh, you're actually retarded.
Legit mental retardation.
My apologies.

They made a board just for people like you, it's called /mlp/.
You'll fit right in

This is simple

You have 3 doors
All 3 are equal
This means each door has a 33.33% chance of having a car

You pick a door at 33.33%
The host picks a door with a goat

You are not left with 2 doors
You're original pick has not changed and still has a 33.33% chance of having the car.

However you are left with 2 doors, the other door has a 50% chance of having the car behind it.

You should always switch.

>>679640893
That is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

If one cup has $20 each cup has a 33% chance.
You can tell me a cup has a 50% chance, but that doesn't mean anything, because it doesn't have a 50% chance.

I hope.you can see how retarded you sound by saying this

You guys are retards. You nigger faggots would never make it to a game show. Y'all socially akward.

>>679638929
YOU SHOLD CHANGE

1.when you selected one of the 3 doors you had 33% chance to select the car-door.
2.when the host reveals one of the goat-door, if you change, you have now 50% chance to select the lucky door
50>30 then you should change
/thread

>>679641178
The other door has a 66% chance.
But you're right to switch.

>>679638929
I play this game 3 times, then sue him for cheating since with a sample of 3 doors the square root of a total sample of 9, 0% being correct is statistically highly unlikely.

I should've picked a winning door by now, fuck you and your rigged game give me the car.

>>679641348
> 33%+50%=100%
You see the problem there.

>>679640492

There are 6 gorillion doors. Behind one of the doors is a gaggle of gagged lolis. Every other door is a dirty smelly turkroach wrestler who'll have his wicked way with your sweet boipussy.

You pick a door at random at the start. What are your odds of getting the loli harem?

Three scenarios where X is car and O is goat.

X O O
O X O
O O X

These are the three options. If you stay, you will win 33% of the time.
If you switch, you have to pick the goat from the start, which you have a 66% chance of doing.
Stay = 33%
Switch = 66% of shiny new car.

The key is that you have to pick the car from the start if you stay, or pick a goat if you switch. It's not that hard.

>>679641358
>If I bet red on roulette twice in a row and don't win one of them, they must be cheating

>>679641350
Shiet, apologies, wasn't looking at this properly... Still both ways reveal the correct option as you said

File: Togepi.jpg (64 KB, 401x279) Image search: [Google]

64 KB, 401x279

>>679638929
This problem can be understood more easily if you increased the number of doors- to 100 for instance.
If you pick one door out of 100 you have a ridiculously low chance of choosing the right one, now if the moderator closes 98 doors and asks you if you want to reconsider it seems pretty logical to swap doors.
The same principle can be applied to 3 doors.

File: fag.png (9 KB, 798x108) Image search: [Google]

9 KB, 798x108

If you take door 1

Switching doesn't change anything.
If you believe that, you're an idiot.

>>679641456
Fuck all, which means there's a fucking good chance the harem is behind a door you didn't choose.
Obviously you wouldn't stick with the door you.first chose would you?

You seem to be agreeing with me, either you just figured it out, or you've misunderstood my post

>>679641227
So you're telling me that something with twice the probability of having the $20 still has a 33.33% chance, even when the host reveals that it has twice the chance of having the $20 over the other 2?

Riiiiiiiight

>>679641687
> the curse of the stupid person
They think they're smarter than everyone else.

>>679641726
How does it have twice the probability?
You saying it does doesn't make it so.

One cup out of three has 33% chance regardless of what you say.

>>679641726
> at casino playing roulette
> croupier tells me red has 75% chance to win
> don't believe him because that's retarded

>>679641687
This is true if the host just asks you to switch to any other random door without reveling what's in them, which he doesn't. He picks a door you didn't wanted to take.

>>679641978
It's not a discrete set, new information is revealed so the probabilities are re-assessed.

>>679641720

I misunderstood you're point. Yeah I think we're in agreement. But just to clarify, picking at random you'd have a 1/6 gorillion chance of winning the lolis. So think of it in sets. One set (your pick) has a 1/6 gorillion chance of having the lolis. The second set thus has a 5.99...gorillion/6 gorillion chance of having the lolis. If all but one door in the second set was ruled out as being a turkroach then the 5.999.... probability is concentrated in that one remaining door from set two.

Another way to think of it, 6 gorillion other people are playing this game too (each using their own set of 6 gorillion doors). Each does as you did and picks a door to start with. Now consider tehy all stay on their first choice. How many, statistically, would win?

>>679640589
I always hated that fucking kid in class.

>>679642530
I get it anon, I'm OP.

the odds of being right increases when he opens the door with the goat, because if the car is behind the door you chose in the start, the host would have never openend, so stay on the door you picked the first time

>>679642500
No new information has been revealed at all.

One cup out of three can't have a 50% chance.of having the $20 under it.

You don't seem to understand even the basic concept of percentages.

Proof. Say you decide to go with door 1, here are the three scenarios.
___________________________
1.) The goats are behind doors 1 and 2. The host opens door 2 to show the goat and you switch to door 3. WIN!!!!
2.) The goats are behind doors 1 and 3, the host opens door 3 to show the goat and you switch to door 2. WIN!!!!
3.) The goats are behind doors 2 and 3. The host opens either of the two and you switch to a goat. FUCKING LOSER!!!

Three scenarios where you win 2 of them. So, 67%. It's called a moving probability. There's another one about three boxes containing two coins And a moving probability there by forcing a scenario.

>>679642891
What?
Why wouldn't he open a door?
He has to, it's the rules of the game.

>>679642500
Why isn't the probability of the door you already selected reassessed? It's illogical to assume your first guess is automatically incorrect when there's no evidence to support that assumption.

>>679642500

no dummy. you pick a door at random at the start. Say there are 100 doors, what are the odds that the lolis are behind the door you picked? This isn;t some Schrodinger cat situation. The lolis are now and have always been behind the same door.

So, you pick one door out of 100. What are the odds you picked the winning door?

All the explanations in this thread are terrible.
Here's why there's a 2/3 chance of winning if you switch: The only way switching won't land you with the car is if the first door you picked was the car.

It's easier to imagine it like this: Say that there's 100 doors, one with a car, and 99 with goats. You pick a door, it's 1/100 odds it's the car. So if you switch after all but one other door is opened to reveal goats, there's a 99/100 chance it's the car because there's only a 1/100 chance you picked the car originally.

>>679643333
That's the thing. At the beginning you have an exact pribability. But then the probability moves once the host starts opening doors. It's all subjective to the rules, so it's never an exact math.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

>>679643657
This

>>679643333
1/100
Say you open door 20. The host then reveals goats in 98 other doors, leaving only 20 and 78 closed. Are your chances still 1/100 if you switch?

>>679643090
You don't automatically assume your first choice was incorrect.
You logically and factually assume there's a 66% chance your first choice was incorrect.
That means there's a 66% chance you will win if you switch.

But you're replying to a reply string that began with a guy stating if he had 3 cups, and put $20 under one, if he tells you one cup has a 50% chance of having the $20 under it, that it actually does.
>>679640893
He also seems to think that twice the chance of 1/3=50%

>>679643662

>this is not a Schrodinger's cat type situation.

If what you propose is true then it would be true for my 6 gorillion example too. Which means that by simply ruling out every door that is not the prize you can retroactively improve your odds of winning. This is not how physics works.

>>679642990

Honestly this is the simplest explanation of it. Give that man an eyebrow.

>>679643657
> says all explanations in this thread are shit
> gives explanation that has been posted multiple times already
You're even dumber than the retards saying 50%

>>679643825
It's 99/100 if you switch, that was his point

No you don't increase your chances at all, after he opens one of them there's only 2 left so there's a 50% chance either way

>>679644217
oh ok

>>679644281
But that's wrong you retard

>>679644281
Uh, no.

>>679641178
>>You're original pick has not changed and still has a 33.33% chance of having the c
if the host told you there is a goat behind one of the doors, then you must recalculate the odds, so between the two doors remaining the chance is 50%, you cant just keep the old chance with the new information, thats just dumb
also its Your and not You're, you're welcome.

>>679642990
But the 3rd one accounts for 2 losers so you're wrong, there's 2 options that make you lose and 2 that make you win

>>679643941
You can test this shit out on your own if you don't believe. Open up some compiler and write a program for this. Run at least 1,000 simulations and your probability will come to light.

I did this because I truly didn't believe the Bertrand's Box paradox, turns out it was right.

>>679644691
Option 1 makes you win
Option 2 makes you win
Option 3 makes you lose
2 options + 2 options = 4 options???????
Where's the last option?

I understand that switching increases your chances, but doubling ?

>>679644691
> 3 choices
> 2 make you lose
> 2 make you win
2+2=3

You can't be this dumb

>>679644909
Read >>679642990

>>679644902
>>679644920
The guy hid an extra option in the 3rd option to try to prove his point you dingos

>>679640328
But it does though...

>>679644909
Yes, doubling.
If you had a 33% chance to win first choice, obviously the remaining percentage, 66%, is applied to switching, since you can only switch to one door out of the remaining 2.

We've all seen the movie.

Choosing one at random out of 3 doors means you have a 33.33% chance of choosing correctly.

One door is opened revealing a goat. Choosing to switch after the first door is still random chance, but you have a 50% chance between choosing the correct door out of the two unopened doors, as opposed to your 33.33% chance with the first door you chose.

>>679645117
please explain

>>679645208
Thanks math /b/ro

You have a 2/3 chance of getting a goat.
If you get a goat and swith you will get a car,
You have a 2/3 chance of getting a car.

>>679645260
Goats are behind 2 3 and you pick 1

Host opens 2 and there's a goat, you switch
Host opens 3 and there's a goat and you switch, you lose

That's 2 options not 1

It's still 2 wins 2 losses

>>679645239
No. Switching means you have to pick a goat if you want to win the car, which you have a 66% chance of doing.

>>679645117
No he didn't you "dingo"
In the first 2 outcomes, the host could only open 1 specific door.
In outcome 3, he can open either because they are both goats.
This does not change the result.
Fucking dingos man, always stealing babies and fucking up probabilities.

>>679638929

>DOOR NUMBER 3, FINAL ANSWER!

File: 1459729463071.png (84 KB, 240x240) Image search: [Google]

84 KB, 240x240

>>679638929
What a spooky problem

Can someone please explain one thing about probabilities to me?

I understand why you have to switch in the goat thing.

What I don't understand is the difference between what seems to be different probabilities in the same scenario.

Probability of a preferred event (let's call it S) is defined as (Number of outcomes which entail S)/(Total number of outcomes)

Let's say you have 3 cups and one has a ball underneath.

The probability of finding a ball underneath a random cup could be looked at in two ways:

A) (number of preferred outcomes)/(number of all outcomes) = 1 (ball) / 3 (cups) = 33.33%

But you can also say:

B) (number of preferred outcomes)/(number of all outcomes) = 1 (finding a ball) / 2 (finding a ball and not finding a ball)

Both seem to be mathematically correct.

What is the difference between them and why is A correct? Is it because A has more specific details and accounts for deeper context?

>>679645398
This guy gets it.

>>679645428
Yeah that's my fucking point tho isn't it, 2 outcomes have you win and two have you lose

So switching does fuck all to increase

>>679640328
You do know people have done models and proven that you have twice the chance experimentally right?
So that "technically" means "in reality", and your answer is wrong "in reality".
>and cant do anything past their retarded formulas and refuse to learn anything else or think for their own selves
Those retarded formulas work, and accurately describe reality. You're the dipshit with the inability to learn.

>>679638929

Door 3 please.

>>679645511

>3 doors
>let's say you have 3 cups

That doesn't simplify the already incredibly simple proposition, faggot.

>>679645239
> I'm gonna explain it to everyone because some movie I saw
> fucks up explanation.
cool movie bro

>>679645260
You don't get to decide what door the host opens. If you pick door 1 and it contains the car, you lose regardles of what door the host opens. It's still only one option. You still have door 2 and 3 as options.

>>679644281
Since when is 50% equal to 33.33% ??? Retard explain me.

OP is correct. In a state of pure probability, you would double your chances by switching.

However, nothing ever actually exists in a pure state of probability, so outside of computer simulations and people who have no idea what they're doing, the theory is mostly irrelevant, as people who even have the slightest clue how to handle this will generally win the car about 50-70% of the time ANYWAY.
And people who THINK they know what they're doing will win the goat 100% of the time regardless of what they do.

So, realistically, it doesn't matter at all unless you've never seen the problem in the first place. There's just too many state-switches occurring at any given time.

>>679645398
was meant for you >>679645626

Door 1: Goat
Door 2: Car
Door 3: Goat

You chose door 1 and host opens door 3.
You choose door 2 and host opens door 3
You chose door 3 and host opens door 1

In this instance and ANY other scenario of doors: switching results in car 2/3 times.

>>679645621

Yes it does, because there's no switching in this example.

File: 1400973610767.jpg (205 KB, 710x690) Image search: [Google]

205 KB, 710x690

>>679638929
i will go ahead and post the solution, since even with the solution in front of them retards will still argue it's 50/50

there may be some who aren't complete imbeciles who will appreciate the explanation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

>>679645562
No, on outcome 3, the host could open either door because they are both goats.
It doesn't matter because either way he opens a goat door.

He doesn't play outcome 3 twice opening each door, it's saying in game 3, the host COULD CHOOSE to open either door.

It's still one game, and he only opens one door.
Go and read that anons post again and you might get it

>>679645511
> what are the odds of winning lotto
> 2 outcomes
> you either win, or you lose
> chance to win lotto is 50%

Do you get it now?

File: 1380547965901.jpg (48 KB, 300x250) Image search: [Google]

48 KB, 300x250

>>679645677
don't know if retard who really believes this BS or elaborate troll

>>679645677
How the fuck did you learn to operate a computer?
With your level of retardation, that's the real probability confusion.

>>679645873
It's almost as if someone hadn't already posted that link.
Fucking hit and post newfags can't even lurk a thread before posting.

>>679638929
No shit retards, this is the Monty Hall problem. It has been known for a while that changing the door doubles your chances of winning.. Speaking of doubles, CHECK 'EM

File: IMG_20160317_220056.jpg (23 KB, 320x320) Image search: [Google]

23 KB, 320x320

>>679640148
Retard

File: 1378400955845.gif (3 KB, 247x244) Image search: [Google]

3 KB, 247x244

>>679646706

>>679646802
> enters thread
> immediately posts shit said many times
> oblivious to the fact that OP stated he was stirring retards
> calls everyone retards
> has quick jerking off to random numbers
> goes back to trap thread.

Autism pls go

>>679646947
Wow, you must feel special...
A few replies in and you're already replying.

It not as if OP was bumping the thread in the beginning to keep it on page one so it stayed above the flood of trap/dickrate/faces of /b/ or anything.

You are worse than the retards that say 50%.

>>679644642
Holy shit you are actually this retarded, how is highschool going bud?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

File: 2016-03-06_20.59.14.jpg (329 KB, 999x1300) Image search: [Google]

329 KB, 999x1300

>>679638929
All these retards saying it's a 50-50 chance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

You fucking switch

>>679647052
> now I look like a complete faggot
> how can I salvage this with damage control?
> I know! I'm a fucking genius for coming up with this idea
> I'll try and insult the guy that exposed my faggotry with a shitty image.
> god I love being so smrt

>>679647574
>gullible kid believing everything he reads on wiki >blindly instead using his own brain
how is elementary school going?

File: 1333257712292.gif (2 MB, 200x150) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 200x150

>>679647769
why u mad though

>>679646536
>retard who really believe this BS
>elaborate troll
>Assuming 50% chance of being right
No, someone who ACTUALLY knows what they're talking about, because every single time a state change occurs, it propagates other state changes. That's the way anything happens, ever.

The Universe was literally observed into existence, and so was everything in it. Observation results in a collapsed state out of the superposition.
Let the person picking doors be Observer
There are 4 possibilities in this scenario:
>Observer does NOT know what door car is behind
>Observer DOES know what door car is behind
>Observer is unsure what door car is behind
>Observer THINKS they are sure what door car is behind

Under condition 1, there is a limited stream of state change, because fewer observations (pre-calculations) are occurring, so this can be treated as probabilistic scenario. However, this is also not quite true, but for argument's sake

Under scenario 2, pre-observation matches the necessary stream of emanating observational patterns, and programmatically generates the correct result. This should be treated as a slam-dunk, and you should NEVER switch

In scenario 3, the observer is unsure of what to do. This will cause state-changes to occur at arbitrary intervals with reference to the pre-calculated outcomes. As such, this also can be treated as probability.

In scenario 4, however, the person has post-observed enough potential-win scenarios that they now THINK they are pre-calculating them. However, due to pre-post-observation, they are actually annihilating most state-changes in their favor, because the states get observed before they happen as if they already happened, so this is like going retard on a Heisenberg model - rather than picking the right point from an educated perspective, they are picking what they WANT to be the right state AT THE WRONG TIME.

So, it really depends on how you're observing at any given time.

File: 1333026798541.jpg (63 KB, 240x320) Image search: [Google]

63 KB, 240x320

>>679647776

>>679641687
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

K

ITT faggots who don't understand the law of large numbers and actually thinking your chance of winning by switching is 67%

>>679647999

>>679647776
It's fact anon.
It's been tested and proven many times now, this isn't a new thing.

But by all means post more dumb shit, you already think it's 50%, so you might as well ride the retard highway at full speed

File: XpOtynp.jpg (79 KB, 800x600) Image search: [Google]

79 KB, 800x600

>>679638929

What kind of jewish trickery is this?

File: 1376433422576.jpg (46 KB, 600x393) Image search: [Google]

46 KB, 600x393

>>679647925
yfw you posted that wall of text

>>679638929
i agree with OP

File: images.jpg (9 KB, 194x260) Image search: [Google]

9 KB, 194x260

>>679647776
"I didn't read it but you're still wrong"

Your autism is showing

>>679648098
isn't it great?

it has been teaching anons humility for years. also it shows how many will not accept the truth even if it is in front of their eyes. it's kind of like a filter which separates people who use reason to get to conclusions and those who use their instincts like animals

>>679647883
Ridiculing you doesn't suggest I'm mad.
You just did exactly what I made fun of again.

> now I look even dumber because it happened twice
> this will take some next level damage control
> I'VE GOT IT!!!!
> I'll suggest he was angry
If only this was a cringe thread, then what you're saying would have some value

>>679647465
>you are worse than the retards saying it's 50%

You said that

>>679647925
Observer knows nothing
Host knows everything

That's why your wall of text made you look even dumber.

Pick door 1: Chances are 1/3.

Door 3 is goat. Door 3 is now out of equation, chances are 1/2

Choice between door 1 and door 2. 1 option is car, one option is goat.

You have 50% chance of car either way, regardless of if you stay or swap.

Ergo it doesn't matter if you swap.


(contributing points to the contrary include the body language of game show host, chance he may let on to more than he should about whats behind a door, try easing your way towards one option and gauging reaction. Example: Who wants to be a millionaire with Eddie McGuire)

File: 1377754802844.jpg (32 KB, 508x595) Image search: [Google]

32 KB, 508x595

>>679648438

>>679641873
1 in 3 chance
1 in 2 chance
Odds are the same for the second door. Switching will not improve. Derp

I don't understand how the fuck people can get so salty over a logic/maths puzzle.

>>679638929
OP is actually not quite correct. I'll explain. It depends on whether or not the host knew which door the prize was behind when he revealed the one with the goat. If the host knew, then yeah, you double your chance by switching. If he didn't actually know, then your chances are the same. Fascinating.

File: 1459310156948.jpg (60 KB, 480x360) Image search: [Google]

60 KB, 480x360

>>679648438
Pretty sure everyone is cringing at you, anon

>>679648005
It would appear you are the faggot that doesn't understand law of large numbers.

It in no way at all applies to this problem.

>>679645511
Because its not about the possible outcomes, its about the possible scenarios that lead to those outcomes. If one scenario leads to getting a ball, and two scenarios lead to getting a ball, then its 1-in-3 of finding a ball, because there's 3 scenarios and 1 that lead to a ball.

File: i_want_you____by_orionmadix-d7cecrn.jpg (42 KB, 350x262) Image search: [Google]

42 KB, 350x262

>>679648681
>>679648615
you are both wrong, but if you read the wikipedia article you will see that even academics get this question wrong, so it's nothing to be ashamed of (well, it is, but just a little)

the question is: will you be able to realize your mistake or will you stay ignorant forever. does it take more than you have to admit your mistake?

>>679649006
>If one scenario leads to getting a ball, and two scenarios lead to getting a ball
>1 scenario and 2 scenarios
>all 3 scenarios are the same

genious

>>679648499
It's nap time for you Timmy.
Don't want to be late for the short bus

>>679649006
If the host knows that he is going to reveal the goat, then the chance is better if you switch.

If he doesn't and he just happens to reveal a goat incidentally, your odds stay the same.

In this way, it's a bit more nuanced then I think even people who get it understand.

>>679649058
You honestly think these retards will admit they are wrong?

It doesn't fucking matter if you change. 3 doors so there's a 1 in 3 chance. Just because one of the doors not picked has a goat in it doesn't mean it effects the other doors. It's a 1 in 3 chance. It doesn't change just because a door has a goat.

1/3 chance with 3 doors.

1 door is the one you picked already

1 door is revealed to have a goat

2/3 doors are unknown while 1/3 is a goat.

So either door you pick will have a 1/3 chance.

Switching does not matter

>>679648410

Maybe so. Still seems incredibly jewish to me.

File: 1447430951410.jpg (347 KB, 1360x2048) Image search: [Google]

347 KB, 1360x2048

>>679638929
switch
aka monty hall's problem

do you have some more?

>>679649153
>I can't read my previous posts

Ok

>>679648848
so your final response is essentially
> I know you are but what am I?

Underage b&

File: 1329528414321.jpg (58 KB, 500x199) Image search: [Google]

58 KB, 500x199

>>679649156
well, years ago i was one of those retards and made butthurt posts arguing. i admitted that i was wrong. if i could do it, others can, too (i was really arrogant back then).

>>679649058
Show me EXACTLY where I'm wrong.

>>679649006
I like your odds kid.
I've got an open seat for you anytime you want to come and gamble.

>>679648584
Knowledge, in an of itself, is an observation.

You can very easily know something that you did not participate in setting up or even see before.
Those scenarios, in and of themselves, are not probabilistic, but a result of observational patterns.

Also, the one thing the Observer does NOT know, EVER is which superimposed Host they're viewing.

Clarifying:
In scenario 1, the Observer DOES know the Host. This means, their observational pattern dictates that they CANNOT know the door. Thus, probability.

In scenario 2, the Observer knows the state, but this precludes them from having any idea which version of the Host they are observing. However, that doesn't matter, because the Host is only an intermediate entity. Don't pay attention to the Host, so you don't accidentally know them when the flux is incorrect.

In scenario 3, you neither know who the Host is OR the state, because you don't know how to handle the problem in the first place. This can either be from never having heard of it, or it can be from simply not understanding how it can be handled. This is a probability scenario.

And in the 4th state, the Observer either: mistakenly observes the Host instead of the result, causing probability to invert itself into a negation state. OR the Observer THINKS they're observing the state, positive, but they are actually observing negative. Again, probability INVERTS. In this scenario, if you know how to identify it, you should do exactly the opposite of what you're thinking... unless you have calculated WAY too far and are now observing a set-state outcome, as you have observed YOURSELF picking the wrong option.

>>679649399
I'm not even the person you were arguing with.

But go ahead and keep replying, you are just revealing more of your autism

File: 1338557371411s.jpg (2 KB, 126x103) Image search: [Google]

2 KB, 126x103

>>679649510
read the article, keep an open mind while doing so. all the information you need to figure it out is there

Depends how you look at it.

Scenario wise, yes.

Outcome wise, doesn't matter.

>>679649650
To clarify, they do NOT know THAT they know the Host in scenario 1. I reread that, and it didn't make sense.

>>679649287
I know I said it.
I said it to you because you did a dumb

You seem to be confused...
What was your point in quoting that?

>>679649164

The thing is because there are three doors in the initial state you only have a 1/3 chance of picking the right one. The one ruled out is always a lose. So you're sat there on you're 33% chance of being correct. That means there was a 66% chance you picked incorectly in the first place. And now one of the remaining doors has been rules out meaning that 66% chance of winning is tied to just one door, teh one you can switch to.

The key thing to remember here is that when you picked a door you only had a 33% chance of winning.

This answer best answer >>679642990

it is because the host knows which door has the goat, and if theres only 2 doors he can pick from, the one he doesnt pick has a higher chance of being the car because of he didnt pick it.

double your chance to win by switching

>>679649839
>you did a dumb
>I'm the one on the short bus
>???

>>679641512
But, once the goat is revealed to be behind one door, the two remaining doors BOTH switch to being 50% likely to having a car. So why switch?

>>679649650
So much text.
> 66% chance you chose chose a goat first
> if you have a goat, switching wins
> switching wins 66%

3 lines of text says everything necessary, but by all means post a third wall anyway

>>679649998
First day here?
I'd say you won't fit in here, but you actually will now.
That's the sad part

>>679650132
They can't change odds.
There are still 3 doors, the only difference is now you know what's behind one of them.

File: rektfgt.png (30 KB, 713x673) Image search: [Google]

30 KB, 713x673

>>679648894
completely REKT

>>679650137
I already posted all the wall I SHOULD need to. Simply reread it. The problem is that you are assuming probability is a guaranteed state. It's not. Probability only occurs in 2/4 scenarios. The other scenarios involve Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Mechanics, basically. It has little if anything to do with probability in 50% of the scenarios.

>>679650132
each door has 1/3.

the door you initially picked stays at 1/3 no matter what. one door gets eliminated by the host, the remaining one thus has 2/3

File: 1458267099993.png (2 MB, 1920x1080) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 1920x1080

>>679650297

The fact that you got baited this hard

Yes anon, I'm the new one here.

>>679650481
nice, as fuck!!

I wonder how similar it would be at 1 million, though. Try that anon.

File: 11942163_10153614755942533_4314214719831115025_o.jpg (214 KB, 2048x1365) Image search: [Google]

214 KB, 2048x1365

>>679649709

This is truth. I was thinking 50/50, and everybody else were trolls....

Read the article, and now I'm convinced it's better to switch.

Two major punchlines:
1) The host KNOWS where the car is, and CHOOSES to open a door with a goat. If you think of the original problem as picking A) Your door, or B) the other pair, it helps. A= 1/3, B= 2/3, and the host helps you with B.

2) If there were 1,000,000 doors, and you picked one at random. And the host opened 999,998 all with goats, would you still be so confident it's just 50/50 at that point, that you picked the right one? Or is it more probable that you picked a 1/million shot, and the host picked around the correct pick, and thus you should switch?

>>679649650
what??????

File: 1306326455111.jpg (35 KB, 700x535) Image search: [Google]

35 KB, 700x535

>>679650570
>>679650297
>>679649998
>>679649839
why don't you two get a room?

File: 1460693708581.jpg (45 KB, 550x397) Image search: [Google]

45 KB, 550x397

>>679638929
I fucking hate prob and stats man why did you bring this shit to b of course you increase your chances

>>679650481
>Completely fuck up a simple simulation.
You just rekt yourself you idiot.

>>679641348
This is fucking retarded. BOTH remaining doors have 50%chance, not just the one you didn't choose. If you chose right the first time, it's still right, and switching means you lose.

>>679650499
There's only 3 scenarios anon.
It's fact. It's been tested and proven.
I posted 3 lines of text that shouldve made it obvious.

At this point I have to assume you're the "just pretending to be retarded" troll, which isn't trolling, it's just being retarded.

File: 1334544369939.jpg (37 KB, 544x463) Image search: [Google]

37 KB, 544x463

>>679650683
congratulations! it isn't easy to admit mistakes, even to ourselves. you can now justifiably feel smarter than all the 50/50 crybabies ITT

>>679650824
you're pretty assblasted about the fact that I exposed your lack of understanding stochastic.

>>679649709
>>679650683
>>679651129
Samefag fuck off

One third of the comments are the samefag.
Never leaves his house, just posting on 4chan instigating people. Hasnt even opened 3 doors in his life, the little goat fucker.

>>679651236
>lack of understanding

It didn't work because you wrote it in Java, if you were to put it into HTML format the variables would have worked

File: tmp_4773-db01124864531.jpg (49 KB, 600x1104) Image search: [Google]

49 KB, 600x1104

>>679650570

>>679651443
Yet you keep getting baited

Amazing

>>679650699
God dammit...
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that you can't know a point that an electron will be at any given time, you can only know the places it might be.
However, if you manage to know where the electron is at a point, you will therefore have absolutely no clue where it will be shortly after.

It works the same way, but applied to the Superposition of States. This means that every possibility of an event is happening at the same time. You can only know one of the following: the RESULT of the event OR the CONDITIONS of the event.
Once you know one, you don't know the other.
"Knowing", however, is the state of having observed into a particular flux pattern. You will begin each event EITHER knowing the STATE or knowing the OUTCOME. You can't know both.

If you know one, then the other is up for grabs, SO: In a situation where you are observationally connected to the Host, the outcome is vague. In a situation where the Host is observationally vague, the outcome is much easier to calculate. In the third type of condition, where you EITHER don't know how to handle the situation, you are constantly switching between knowing one or the other. And in the 4th type, you THINK you know how to handle the situation, but you do it wrongly, resulting in self-observing, creating a generally negative state, because you are no longer in flux with regard to the environment, you are in flux with regard to yourself.

>>679650683
You are the 4th anon to admit getting it after denying it in the many times I've drunkenly.made and laughed at these threads.

Congrats anon, now you can laugh at retards that refuse to consider they may be wrong, while calling everyone's else retarded

>>679651326

rofl, negative. Seriously read the article, worst case you lose 10mins of your life. Best case, mindblown

>>679650481

>switching wins 3 times
>staying wins 7 times

Anon you dun fucked it.

File: 1382829646741.jpg (14 KB, 395x393) Image search: [Google]

14 KB, 395x393

>>679651326
this post is funny because it shows that you cannot even imagine someone admitting to a mistake. this must be because you would never do it yourself. i'd wager you believe in conspiracy theories, am i right?

>>679650481
I just realized... How the fuck is there a post-while in that for loop?? There's no do statement...

It allowed you to compile that? God, I hate Java...

>>679650723
Fuck you faggot.
I'm OP, and if I want to laugh at a retard, that's what I'll do.

It was after all the entire point of this thread

>>679651426
>html
>variables
I see that you're in 3rd grade and have no idea about programming. I will stop this conversation with you.

can someone explain like im retarded why choose door 2

>>679651891
no wait, nevermind... It was your function syntax. that was a do-while INSIDE the for loop.

I always have trouble reading when people put the bracket at the end of the line...

>>679650852
And if you chose wrong first time switching always wins.

You have 66% chance of choosing wrong first time

>>679651947
You're the retard for using incorrect probability factors which negated the program from producing an answer that fit the correct criteria based on the conjecture

Why would switching matter? If you know that it's door 2 or 3 then either is the same.

>>679652190
This, your program is shit anon

File: 1377051912360.jpg (97 KB, 460x630) Image search: [Google]

97 KB, 460x630

>>679651958
if the wikipedia article is too much for you, maybe watch these two videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lb-6rxZxx0
https://youtu.be/7u6kFlWZOWg

>>679651236
You did it intentionally faggot.
I don't believe that anybody able to write what you did, would make the mistake you did.

You shouldve gone with the common mistake of having the host open a random door which gives a 50% outcome.

That would've been believable.

>>679651563
Or are you the one taking the b8
>B8ception

Since you actually used the word bait, not b8, I'm going with you being the one following the lure.

>>679651707
One more wall and you'll box yourself in.
Please do it

ITT:

Underage faggots who have never heard of the Monty Hall Problem and are too stupid to wrap their head around some college level math.

File: IMG_20160306_204936.jpg (4 KB, 127x117) Image search: [Google]

4 KB, 127x117

>>679652725
It's just too easy at this point

>>679651958
Switching is essentially betting that your first choice was wrong, at 2:1 odds.

66% chance your first choice is a goat.
If you have a goat, switching always wins.

File: 1460350889629.gif (864 KB, 242x200) Image search: [Google]

864 KB, 242x200

>>679641247

>y'all

Why try to win a goat when you can fuck your sister for free right now

>>679652971
lol nah, I've heard of it. I've read about it, and I've studied it.
But it's wrong when dealing with Quantum Physics, because probability doesn't apply the same way anymore.

>>679652971
i don't think they are all too stupid, most of them have psychological reasons for closing their minds

>>679653171
It really is, but you're not even entertaining anymore, so fuck off.
But can you resist replying just one more time?

Doubt it, but if you do, you'll just be proving the point.
It's not even b8 or trolling, or retard/old triggering at this point.
I'm straight telling you that I'm forcing you.to reply to this, and you will.

File: 1381514538943.png (2 MB, 1786x1030) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 1786x1030

>>679653604
you are the faggot who posted that wall of text up there, right? your posts are like a trainwreck

The predetermined decision to remove a goat midway through makes it redundant to the probability. At first glance you have a 1/3 chance of knowing, but if the host is always going to remove a goat from a door you DON'T pick before you make a final decision, you've always had a 50/50 chance.

>>679653604
>Quantum Physics
KEEEEKKK

First of all, who said anything about quantum physics? It's not a variable in this argument.

Second, please stop acting like you know ANYTHING about probability or quantum physics. Reading half a wikipedia article doesn't replace years of college courses, kiddo.

>inb4 IM NOT A KID IM 19 YERS OLD xDD

File: 1379522090262.jpg (15 KB, 221x180) Image search: [Google]

15 KB, 221x180

>>679653604
>>679653775
oh, i have a tip for you: look into epistemology! i think it's even better than quantum physics to defend absurd beliefs you have!

>>679653604
You do not understand quantum physics if you think it can influence the odds of 1 item behind 3 doors.

So congratulations, you fail at maths AND physics.
I hope you can build, design, or lift heavy things, otherwise your futures pretty flat anon.

File: QMgsGex.jpg (121 KB, 960x638) Image search: [Google]

121 KB, 960x638

>>679654043
>>679654129
he can always become a religious authority. his way of thinking lends itself very well to that profession i think

>>679653667
>can't argue
>I'll say replying is falling for bait
>post a wall of text but I'm still not the mad one

Welcome to /b/

>>679654022
If your first choice is 33%, how can the remaining choice be 50%

You're saying that 33%+50%=100%

File: 987251565_22ea2338dd.jpg (43 KB, 315x466) Image search: [Google]

43 KB, 315x466

>>679654380
>>679653667
>>679653171
>>679652725
you two are still at it?

i told you to get a room.

pic related

>>679638929
Who the fuck cares, it comes to luck anyway

>>679654477
You're not choosing one of 3 options, you're just letting the host know which goat he can't reveal.

When you have to choose, your options will only ever be one goat and one car, you can switch as many times as you want it's still 50/50

File: 1339189030816.png (16 KB, 538x396) Image search: [Google]

16 KB, 538x396

>>679654741
you are wrong

>>679654043
Quantum Physics is a variable in everything.
and I'm 22. I've been out of high school for a while. I'll be finishing up my Bachelor's next year, taking courses in things like Software Engineering.

>>679654129
>You do not understand quantum physics if you think it can influence the odds of 1 item behind 3 doors.
No, but a single neuronal action potential causes a whole slew of state changes that reverberate outward, like a chain reaction. Each state change alters a slight part of what the observer might see, and depending on how programmatic the collapse is from the beginning, it can result in up to 100% certainty on all events (although much more common on SOME nearby events)

>I hope you can build, design, or lift heavy things, otherwise your futures pretty flat anon.
I'm a computer programmer, and after I get my BS, if a few things fall into place soon enough, I do plan to go back for possibly a Masters in Physics, most likely.

>>679641456
All that happens is your odds go from 1:60000000000 to 1:59999999999

>>679654613
And I told you that I made this thread to be entertained by people saying stupid shit.
He wasn't very entertaining, I thought he'd be like cheese and get better as time passed, but he was just cheddar.

Apologies from OP.
the rest of the threads been entertaining though.

>>679654741
Luck isn't real anon

File: 1376007026913.jpg (91 KB, 720x567) Image search: [Google]

91 KB, 720x567

>>679655183
congratulations for being the most stubborn and at the same time most ignorant person ITT.

now read the wikipedia article on the monty hall problem and learn some humility.

>>679638929
fucking stay, id take a goat or a car *allahu intensifies*

>>679655064
No, when you have to choose, it's in the beginning, and you're choosing one door out of three.

That choice has 33% chance of being a car, 66% chance of being a goat.

You have DOUBLE the chance of choosing a goat first.
IF you choose a goat first, SWITCHING wins.

> 66% chance of goat
> if choose goat, switching wins
> 66% chance to win if switching

You knowing what's behind one of the doors doesn't mean that door no longer exists..
Nothing changed other than you knowing what's behind it.

File: 1458711111772.jpg (594 KB, 1020x717) Image search: [Google]

594 KB, 1020x717

>>679655839
this makes sense if one thinks like the average muslim!

>>679655648
>in other words, I'm retarded

>>679638929
It doesn't really matter if you switch or not

>>679655183
I'm starting to think you're the fuckhead that spams that "interplanetary communication human vibration magnetic metal movement vibration blah blah" bullshit pasta

Let's try it this way:
Announcer shows 3 doors, opens one of the doors to show goat, and then asks you to pick. What are your odds?

Or try this scenario:
Announcer shows 3 doors, asks you to write down your choice on paper. He opens one of the doors to show goat, throws your paper away and then asks you to pick. What are your odds?

Ultimately it's always going to be 50/50

>>679641633
This is the simplest, easiest to understand proof. You can't argue with this

>>679655421
That's not enough zeroes for a gorillion you faggot.
Also you're wrong.
You're saying that 1:60000000000+1:59999999999=60000000000/60000000000
Which it obviously isn't.

File: 1329528345002s.jpg (4 KB, 126x112) Image search: [Google]

4 KB, 126x112

>>679656431
he is just a typical young male with too many hormones. arrogant beyond belief and thus inflexible in his thinking. he was also told too many times that he is intelligent when he was a kid. he will grow out of it, probably, hopefully

a good start would be if he actually read the wikipedia article and sees that he isn't infallible

>>679655839
You got INB4'd on the second post faggot

>>679656470
Both scenarios you posted are not in any way comparable to the situation in the OP.

>>679655780
Yo, dude...

You're under the impression that I don't UNDERSTAND the scenario. I FULLY understand it, but it's wrong.

In a purely probabilistic world, it's VERY right.
There is no contest.
But probability does NOT play part in ALL scenarios, such that it is the deciding factor.

You may have seen me from other threads such as "Quantum Consciousness" and "Applied Quantum Observation". If so, you'll be very fucking aware I will not even FEIGN humility on a subject involving Probability-Dependent Realities.

I'm the one who's developing those theories on Telekinesis by Applied Quantum Observation, as a selective collapse of superpositional states such that the eigenvectors of energy are predetermined by the observer programmatically, generating desired outcomes of events in force adjustment.

You could not even HOPE to get me to concede defeat in a match of Probability vs. Decisional Quantum Physics.
Simply because [conscious] programmatic collapse is the basis for a lot of my arguments on anything even remotely related to this or similar subject areas.

I'm also the guy who goes on Atheist threads an defines Consciousness and God[s] as Amorphous Information Field[s] [Vectors].

>>TL;DR<<
You're arguing about Probability with someone whose [eventually funded] research is on probability manipulation through Quantum Observation. You CAN'T win this one.

>>679656431
No, I'm... I'm this guy:
>>679657223

I'm sure I have a good idea of what you're talking about, though. But, I'm not really concerned with Interplanetary Telepathy.
Could be useful, but not going to be part of my initial research projects. I'm more interested in Telekinesis

>>679656834
A "typical" young male wouldn't be saying shit like that to begin with.

Anyone that understands the words and concepts he's using, would never use them in the context he's applying them.

He could be legit retarded, but a functioning retard, and just string a bunch of shit he heard on discovery channel together to the best of his understanding, but something tells me he's the anon that spams that shit.
Which would also fit him being a functioning retard, so perhaps it's both.

It's called the Monty Hall problem
Look it up

File: 1328528198270.jpg (17 KB, 211x211) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 211x211

>>679657223
good luck trying to get your "research" on telekinesis funded!

you really seem to be beyond help. you may want to look into scientology, they probably agree with what you said and they will teach you how to fly!

godspeed to you, may your aura shine bright, you indigo child!

>>679657420
Wait... your THAT guy??

Well that proves it.
You couldn't possibly be the dumb cunt that spams that shit in random threads.

I'm really leaning towards legit retarded now.

>>679657223
You're arguing with someone who's (eventually funded) research is on quantum observation not influencing probability of complex physical matter

Checkmate faggot

>>679640328

You can just play the game with a friend and see for yourself. Play at least like 100 times to make sure you're not just lucky/unlucky. Playing the game once only takes a few seconds...
You can also play the gam online, but I have a feeling you're going to think the game cheats or something (which, to be honest, is reasonable since it would be easy to just make the car appear 33% of the time if you don't switch)

File: 1306324168505.jpg (1 MB, 1920x1200) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 1920x1200

>>679657504
you are right, he is completely deluded, i admit i didn't read all the shit he wrote thoroughly enough. i read his last post, it opened my eyes.

it's incredible how often quantum mechanics are abused by retards. i still stand by my suggestion for him to look into epistemology, it's a goldmine for imbeciles like him

File: Hcd3CU3.jpg (93 KB, 550x851) Image search: [Google]

93 KB, 550x851

>>679657825
he could be incredibly retarded, but i am beginning to suspect it's just a schizophrenic episode or even full-blown schizophrenia. the way he is arguing would fit somehow.

OK I can understand the increased probability of choosing the right door if you switch but please someone explain something to me...
I choose a door and the host shows me that behind an other door there is a goat. Now I have a chance of 33.3 % to be right and 66.66 % to be right if I choose the other door. If we get some other person, who doesn't know what happened before, to select a door.. What would be his chance of winning?

File: montyhall.png (44 KB, 563x599) Image search: [Google]

44 KB, 563x599

Switch win ratio: 0.66669
Stay win ratio: 0.333103

>>679658194
>>679658753
His ridiculousness isn't that uncommon here lately, it's just more prominent new, because it's the tail end of the thread, so by now most 50/50 retards got frustrated and left, and those still here are more adept at understanding how ridiculous what he's saying actually is.

If he started this shit early in the thread, he'd likely have gained a following.

Also don't post a pic with every post, it's unnecessary, and just shits up the image limit.

>>679657781
Yeah, I'll be funding it myself. I won't need outside funding for it.

Also, Scientology has too many hydrogen bombs and robotic space gorillas riding airplanes for my taste.
Did actually read some of L. Ron's horseshit for the lulz, though.

>>679657825
>acknowledging your post

>>679658088
kek

>>679658194
>>679658753
ugh...
This is becoming painful...

Alright, here (uncollapsing qubits is related to my 'programmatic collapse'; the Orch OR proofs are related to thought allowing the previous thing to happen; and that last one is a study that macroscopically entangled 2 people's brains to generate physical effects):
http://phys.org/news/2013-11-physicists-uncollapse-partially-collapsed-qubit.html
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html
http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/99/101

Since y'all seem to like numbers so much, though, here's something rather fun:
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm
Unless your IQ is also 195 like the guy who wrote it, you probably wouldn't understand it, because he's an ass with his choice and use of words.
Beyond me, even, but reading between the lines, it almost resembled my computer vector-based approach to Information Fields. So, I think it's slightly relevant.

You can also check this video on Google Tech Talks proving Telepathy. And feel free to give it to that other guy. Rather interesting stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY

>>679659393
1/3
do you even math?

>>679659582
This is incorrect faggot;

>you are on a game show
switch stay ratio are equal chance

Game show needs higher ratings: 100.00% Success
Game show doesnt need higher ratings: 100.00% Failure

who's autistic now

>>679660308
you?

>>679659815
He replies to multiple posts at once.
Either very new, or underage b&

Don't do that you faggot.
Here's why...

I disagree with your response, and if you reread my post that you're replying to you should see that you misunderstood parts of what I said.

If that's what you really think in relation to my post then you should go back and reread my first few comments because you've completely missed the point.

What is so hard to understand.

With all the doors closed, your random pick will have a 66% chance of being a goat. Then the host will reveal a door with a goat 100% of the time.

YOUR FIRST PICK BEING A DOOR WITH A GOAT AND THE HOST REVEALING A GOAT IS THE STATISTICALLY MOST PROBABLE OUTCOME BEFORE YOUR DECISION TO STAY OR SWITCH.

THATS WHY YOU SWITCH

>>679660308
You

File: 1356205234732.png (71 KB, 400x400) Image search: [Google]

71 KB, 400x400

>>679659780

>>679660744
Your caps keys broken.
Time for a new keyboard anon

>>679640492

it's a choice of two, dipshit. Door 1 or door 2.

>>679660880
It doesn't matter in a thread like this you idiot, but nice try at being witty.
You almost pulled it off.

File: 1403119019344.gif (691 KB, 400x181) Image search: [Google]

691 KB, 400x181

>>679659815
you should really consider taking your meds again! listen to the people around you, consider what is more likely: all of them being crazy, or you being crazy

>>679638929
i switch it gives me 66.666% chance.
And yes i watched the movie 21 too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr_xWfThjJ0

>>679660987
But you chose one door out of three.
Surely you can see the 3rd door
Surely you read the text referring to 3 doors

Why do you.claim there's only 2 doors?

File: 1355598700069.png (45 KB, 159x219) Image search: [Google]

45 KB, 159x219

>>679661094
>Also don't post a pic with every post, it's unnecessary, and just shits up the image limit.