·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- Awesome Game Show
Awesome Game ShowFollow
Well, take a Discrete math book with you. You should be able to parlay with the rest once when you get back.
Just as Planned.
My degree was in Maths, I just dropped the probility/stats stuff after the first year and went with the Set Theory focus. Looking back it was a mistake.
In Loving Memory of SatanWantsMe 2006-2008
SWM Wiki | Journal | What I am listening to right now
SWM Wiki | Journal | What I am listening to right now
TeWuicah wrote:
PunkFloyd the Flatulent wrote:
TeWuicah wrote:
The 50-50 chance is only true if you ignore that the host can't open the door you picked, or if you forget which door you picked.
This was my debate with Ugly.
The fact is you never, ever have a 50/50 chance in this exercise.
By saying that you have a 50/50 chance means that if you repeatedly pick the same option over multiple instances of the game that you'd be right 50% percent of the time.
I think there's some miscommunication here, and that's probably on my part. Yes, I completely agree.
I was trying to point out the problem I had with people saying "there are 2 doors and one of them has the car, the other doesn't". This is not the problem, since in this version of the problem it's as if you "forgot" which of the 3 you at first picked.
In other words, to get the 50/50 you are no longer answering the problem, which asks "Should you change or not?", but you are just flipping a coin after having forgotten which door you originally picked. This is no longer the problem this "game show" is about at all.
I understand what you're saying there, but my point still stands. Regardless of whether you "forget" your original pick or not, you will never have a 50/50 chance in this game.
To use your coin analogy, you'd be flipping a weighted coin that landed on heads twice as often as landing on tails.
Love,
PunkFloyd
PunkFloyd
What exactly does a degree in math open you up to? I've always wondered?
Do you get to be the best burger flipper you can cause you can count how many are actually in the box?
Do you get to be the best burger flipper you can cause you can count how many are actually in the box?
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Who knew math geeks could be so cruel and vicious to one another!
TirithRR the Mundane wrote:
What exactly does a degree in math open you up to? I've always wondered?
Teaching Maths?
In Loving Memory of SatanWantsMe 2006-2008
SWM Wiki | Journal | What I am listening to right now
SWM Wiki | Journal | What I am listening to right now
SWM wrote:
TirithRR the Mundane wrote:
What exactly does a degree in math open you up to? I've always wondered?
Teaching Maths?
So, you learn higher level mathematics so you can teach higher level mathematics to others so they can learn to teach higher level mathematics?
Is there any real use beyond teaching?
I've never really used anything other than some algebra and trig in the real world. A few things I could have used calculus on, but the short cuts derived from calculus that you learn in algebra and trig are usually enough to solve those problems.
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
A degree in pure math is mostly for teaching math, but Math plus something is where you easily get the 6 figure salaries.
Math + Physics = Applied physics, astrophysics, engineering etc.
Discrete math + Progamming = Computer Science
Math + economics = Big bucks on wall street
The list goes on...
However:
Quantum dynamics + Fractal Math + more Math = Ansible communications (unsolved, and will remain unsolved for a long time.)
Math + Physics = Applied physics, astrophysics, engineering etc.
Discrete math + Progamming = Computer Science
Math + economics = Big bucks on wall street
The list goes on...
However:
Quantum dynamics + Fractal Math + more Math = Ansible communications (unsolved, and will remain unsolved for a long time.)
Just as Planned.
Quote:
I've never really used anything other than some algebra and trig in the real world. A few things I could have used calculus on, but the short cuts derived from calculus that you learn in algebra and trig are usually enough to solve those problems.
Where do you think those shortcuts were derived from
Just as Planned.
Ok, I thought about this very carefully on my way home, and I realized:
I was wrong.
You do, in fact have a 66% chance of winning if you switch your choice after the host opens a door.
I also thought of the simplest way possible to explain why.
If you look at it from the perspective of the host, after the player has made his initial selection, the host is faced with one of 3 situations:
1. The player chose correctly. The two unchosen doors are empty. (33% of the time)
2. The player chose an empty door. The doors remaining are the winner and the other empty. (33% of the time)
3. The player chose the other empty door. Same as number 2. (33% of the time)
In situation 1, the host can open either of the remaining doors. Switching from your initial choice causes you to lose.
In either of situations 2 or 3, the host MUST open the remaining door that is empty. This means that if you switch, you win. This happens two out of three times.
I think this should be the simplest way to show it.
Apologies to everyone I argued with earlier, but critical thinking only makes the brain work gooder.
I was wrong.
You do, in fact have a 66% chance of winning if you switch your choice after the host opens a door.
I also thought of the simplest way possible to explain why.
If you look at it from the perspective of the host, after the player has made his initial selection, the host is faced with one of 3 situations:
1. The player chose correctly. The two unchosen doors are empty. (33% of the time)
2. The player chose an empty door. The doors remaining are the winner and the other empty. (33% of the time)
3. The player chose the other empty door. Same as number 2. (33% of the time)
In situation 1, the host can open either of the remaining doors. Switching from your initial choice causes you to lose.
In either of situations 2 or 3, the host MUST open the remaining door that is empty. This means that if you switch, you win. This happens two out of three times.
I think this should be the simplest way to show it.
Apologies to everyone I argued with earlier, but critical thinking only makes the brain work gooder.
Just about everyone gets it in the end, it just takes some longer than others.
Just as Planned.
AshOnMyTomatoes, Guardian of the Glade wrote:
Ok, I thought about this very carefully on my way home, and I realized:
I was wrong.
You do, in fact have a 66% chance of winning if you switch your choice after the host opens a door.
I also thought of the simplest way possible to explain why.
If you look at it from the perspective of the host, after the player has made his initial selection, the host is faced with one of 3 situations:
1. The player chose correctly. The two unchosen doors are empty. (33% of the time)
2. The player chose an empty door. The doors remaining are the winner and the other empty. (33% of the time)
3. The player chose the other empty door. Same as number 2. (33% of the time)
In situation 1, the host can open either of the remaining doors. Switching from your initial choice causes you to lose.
In either of situations 2 or 3, the host MUST open the remaining door that is empty. This means that if you switch, you win. This happens two out of three times.
I think this should be the simplest way to show it.
Apologies to everyone I argued with earlier, but critical thinking only makes the brain work gooder.
I was wrong.
You do, in fact have a 66% chance of winning if you switch your choice after the host opens a door.
I also thought of the simplest way possible to explain why.
If you look at it from the perspective of the host, after the player has made his initial selection, the host is faced with one of 3 situations:
1. The player chose correctly. The two unchosen doors are empty. (33% of the time)
2. The player chose an empty door. The doors remaining are the winner and the other empty. (33% of the time)
3. The player chose the other empty door. Same as number 2. (33% of the time)
In situation 1, the host can open either of the remaining doors. Switching from your initial choice causes you to lose.
In either of situations 2 or 3, the host MUST open the remaining door that is empty. This means that if you switch, you win. This happens two out of three times.
I think this should be the simplest way to show it.
Apologies to everyone I argued with earlier, but critical thinking only makes the brain work gooder.
It's ok if you skipped over it, as I sometimes do myself, but we've already decided that I won.
I think i'm going to pull an Anna and say everyone was missing the point i was making.
1. I am not argueing that you have a 50/50 chance of picking the right door the second time, I am argueing that you cannot be certain of getting a correct result.
2. There are two seperate probablities at work. the probability that your choice to switch is correct (66%) and the probability that the car is behind 1 of 2 boxes (50%).
3. Because there is always a chance that the car is behind the other box (see probability 2) you cannot be certain that you will win.
I was never argueing over the 66% i was arguing about the word certain used incorrectly.
1. I am not argueing that you have a 50/50 chance of picking the right door the second time, I am argueing that you cannot be certain of getting a correct result.
2. There are two seperate probablities at work. the probability that your choice to switch is correct (66%) and the probability that the car is behind 1 of 2 boxes (50%).
3. Because there is always a chance that the car is behind the other box (see probability 2) you cannot be certain that you will win.
I was never argueing over the 66% i was arguing about the word certain used incorrectly.
Earlier Tarv you were claiming people weren't reading your posts. There may be a lot of response since you last peeked in, but I thought you would at least do a ctrl f to find some of the responses between now and then.
Edited, Apr 1st 2008 7:25pm by Allegory
Allegory page 1 wrote:
Tarv your original statement was:
No you don't, it's Equally as likely that you picked the right door the first time.
a choise of 2 doors, one being right is still 50/50 reguardless of previous choices.
It's not equally as likely that you picked the right door the first time. It's not a 50% chance of one being right.
I don't mean to be rude, but what your trying to arguing what you are saying is pointless. You're now arguing that you mean that out of the two boxes/doors there is a 50% chance one has a car and that one can't be certain which box/door has the car. While both of these statements are true they mean nothing useful. Out of any two objects you have a 50% chance of selecting one, and nearly every situation involving probability lacks perfect certainty. Right, but not relevant.
Tarv wrote:
No you don't, it's Equally as likely that you picked the right door the first time.
a choise of 2 doors, one being right is still 50/50 reguardless of previous choices.
It's not equally as likely that you picked the right door the first time. It's not a 50% chance of one being right.
I don't mean to be rude, but what your trying to arguing what you are saying is pointless. You're now arguing that you mean that out of the two boxes/doors there is a 50% chance one has a car and that one can't be certain which box/door has the car. While both of these statements are true they mean nothing useful. Out of any two objects you have a 50% chance of selecting one, and nearly every situation involving probability lacks perfect certainty. Right, but not relevant.
Edited, Apr 1st 2008 7:25pm by Allegory
Baron von tarv wrote:
I think i'm going to pull an Anna and say everyone was missing the point i was making.
1. I am not argueing that you have a 50/50 chance of picking the right door the second time, I am argueing that you cannot be certain of getting a correct result.
2. There are two seperate probablities at work. the probability that your choice to switch is correct (66%) and the probability that the car is behind 1 of 2 boxes (50%).
3. Because there is always a chance that the car is behind the other box (see probability 2) you cannot be certain that you will win.
I was never argueing over the 66% i was arguing about the word certain used incorrectly.
1. I am not argueing that you have a 50/50 chance of picking the right door the second time, I am argueing that you cannot be certain of getting a correct result.
2. There are two seperate probablities at work. the probability that your choice to switch is correct (66%) and the probability that the car is behind 1 of 2 boxes (50%).
3. Because there is always a chance that the car is behind the other box (see probability 2) you cannot be certain that you will win.
I was never argueing over the 66% i was arguing about the word certain used incorrectly.
What is your rationale for the bold statement? Where do you get 50%?
Love,
PunkFloyd
PunkFloyd
Baron von tarv wrote:
1. I am not argueing that you have a 50/50 chance of picking the right door the second time, I am argueing that you cannot be certain of getting a correct result.
2. There are two seperate probablities at work. the probability that your choice to switch is correct (66%) and the probability that the car is behind 1 of 2 boxes (50%).
3. Because there is always a chance that the car is behind the other box (see probability 2) you cannot be certain that you will win.
2. There are two seperate probablities at work. the probability that your choice to switch is correct (66%) and the probability that the car is behind 1 of 2 boxes (50%).
3. Because there is always a chance that the car is behind the other box (see probability 2) you cannot be certain that you will win.
No one is saying that changing your mind is 100% always going to be correct. Do you think saying you have a 66% chance to win means 100%? By changing your mind, you are mearly increasing your chances of winning from 33% to 66%.
The fact that you may still lose has nothing to do with the "second probability" it has to do with the fact that it's only a 66% chance to win, meaning you have a 33% chance to lose.
Where did you get the idea that anyone was argueing that changing your selection meant you always won?
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Unlike Allegory i will link the FULL post, not just my part so that you have CONTEXT
then you know that must be the right choice.
No you don't, it's Equally as likely that you picked the right door the first time.
a choise of 2 doors, one being right is still 50/50 reguardless of previous choices.
me wrote:
allegory wrote:
then you know that must be the right choice.
No you don't, it's Equally as likely that you picked the right door the first time.
a choise of 2 doors, one being right is still 50/50 reguardless of previous choices.
Quote:
What is your rationale for the bold statement? Where do you get 50%?
2 boxes.
how many cars are there
1 car.
1 in 2 chance it could be behind either box.
1 in 2 = 50%
That never changes, ever, your % chance on chosing the right box to take may change and the odds increase but the odds on it being in one or the other at any given time does not.
No you don't, it's Equally as likely that you picked the right door the first time.
Yeah, that's wrong in context too.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
That never changes, ever, your % chance on chosing the right box to take may change and the odds increase but the odds on it being in one or the other at any given time does not.
Sure, but those odds are never 1 in 2.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Baron von tarv wrote:
Unlike Allegory i will link the FULL post, not just my part so that you have CONTEXT
There are two points here.
First, I already addressed your quotation on the first page, I explained it was to avoid tautology.
Second, the additional context you included changes nothing. You current comments are still just as irrelevant as before, and your original comment is still just as wrong as before.
Edited, Apr 1st 2008 7:49pm by Allegory
Quote:
Yeah, that's wrong in context too.
You have exactly the same odds on picking any given box.
There is 33% chance you will pick box A
there is also 33% chance you will pick box B
So there is the same chance that you picked the box he leaves you as there is of you picking the box you did.
Quote:
One I already address what you quoted me saying, I explain it was to avoid tautology.
Baron von tarv wrote:
Unlike Allegory i will link the FULL post, not just my part so that you have CONTEXT
then you know that must be the right choice.
No you don't, it's Equally as likely that you picked the right door the first time.
a choise of 2 doors, one being right is still 50/50 reguardless of previous choices.
me wrote:
allegory wrote:
then you know that must be the right choice.
No you don't, it's Equally as likely that you picked the right door the first time.
a choise of 2 doors, one being right is still 50/50 reguardless of previous choices.
I think you were the one being selective in your quoting. Allegory's original post was about a 100 door choice.
Your original choice has a 1% chance of being right, meaning a 99% chance of being wrong. Changing your selection gives you a 99% chance of being right.
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Baron von tarv wrote:
Quote:
One I already address what you quoted me saying, I explain it was to avoid tautology.
Then why are you bringing it up?
Your point is that one cannot be absolutely certain that a box contains the prize. However no one in this entire thread has been arguing as such, and it is an obvious statement that does not need to be said. Therefore although correct it is completely irrelevant.
This is why so many people have been confused by your statements Tarv. Because in the context that you are right you are also irrelevant.
Recent Visitors: 328
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (328)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- Awesome Game Show
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC