Is the Monty Hall problem the best example of academics successfully pushing bullshit?

Is the Monty Hall problem the best example of academics successfully pushing bullshit?

Other urls found in this thread:

shodor.org/interactivate/activities/SimpleMontyHall/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

moving the goalposts: the problem

...

It's one of the most consistent examples of brainlets getting butthurt, if that's what you meant

It isn't bull shit you just have a potato brain. Post skin to prove you don't need to be sent back.

It's the best example of the ignorance of the masses.

If you plug in the formula in R or SAS and do the statistical analysis yourself you can see for yourself that it does make sense to switch.

You wouldn't know that however because you're just another normie who....oh wait

>A FUCKING LEAF

>doesn't understand simple logic
>hurr muh evil akademiks

With or without new information after the first selection?

> using R or SAS for this simple as fuck problem

It's just a poorly phrased question used to trip up undergrads get your shit together user.

>g-g-guys l-look I'm just like you m-muh lying academics a- am-mirite g-guys? ...g-guys?

It's the best example of retards jumping to conclusions.

>goatposts
ftfy

>italy
go fix your economy my. Spagettios

looks like you fell for it too, idiot

Anyone who doesn't still get why it's in your advantage to switch is a fucking moron.

Just imagine if it had been 100 Doors, after you pick a door the host opens 98 and then says the winning door has to be either the door you picked or another door.

Guess what, you had a 100 in a hundred chance of guessing the right door from the start. If you switch then it's 1/2. Because you made your first guess on old knowledge.

Sounds like shit.

The assumption is you pick 1, and the host picks 3 - therefore, why didn't they pick 2 (huhh it must have the prize!!!)

Well, that's a load of shit, because it could just as likely be behind 1 or 2, as the host won't open 1 or 2 regardless (1 was picked by the contestant, and the other is either the prize or empty).

i hate monty hall.

There's 10 000 doors.

You pick a random door.

The game host opens 9998 other doors and shows there is nothing behind them.

Will you stay or switch?

>I hate how the world works

If you change the rules so that monty is allowed to open the door with the car, but then doesnt by pure chance, your odds of switching and staying are actually 50/50.

Sadly, people who just learned about monty hall are more stubborn about that than people who have never heard of the problem

>implying the goat isn't the real prize
fools

the Monty Hall thing is so fucking stupid it makes me shit down people's necks irl when they try to say changing doors is an advantage. you don't understand reality idiot retard

>you had a 100 in a hundred chance of guessing the right door from the start. If you switch then it's 1/2.

well i think i would stay with my first selection

The host will never pick your door though, even if it has the prize behind it...

I mean, is it that hard to grasp? There will always be 2 left (yours, and another). Both are equally likely, and you're getting suckered into the false belief the host has left the other door for some suspicious reason

But the Monty Hall problem IS reality. I don't know in murica but in germany they actually changed the rules so that you CAN'T switch anymore because it gives you an unfair advantage.

It makes literally no difference. Are people really this dumb?

changing your pick to the unopened doors raises your chances to roughly 5/7, not 2/3

You always change your pick in this situation.

A fucking goat.

/thread
Also

A FUCKING LEAF

>There will always be 2 left (yours, and another). Both are equally likely

leafs and brits can't into probability theory and are literally BTFOing themselves in this thread

wew, what a glorious day

Is this some elaborate troll? Theres no way anyone believes this

>t. Achmed

yep
you realise tons of statisticians way more intelligent than some dumb fucking leaf on Sup Forums thought it was BS until the simulations ran, right?

1/3 chance of getting the right door when picking from 3 doors at random
1/2 chance of getting the right door when picking from two doors at random

>can initially choose 3 doors with car behind a random one
>each one has 1/3 of a chance
>one door is taken out
>now there are two doors with the car being behind a random one
>for some reason, even though your initial choice can't warp reality, the other door has a higher chance of having the car behind it
This really does seem like the most widespread piece of sophistry out there.

Leaf doesn't understand that you use the software to run the test 10,000+ times

Leaf wants to run them by hand

Why do I even reply

>get expensive car
>forced to pay large amounts of taxes
>uses more gas than an economical car
>probably not allowed to sell it per contract for going on show

>get goat
>no taxes
>eats grass
>get goat milk, can make into cheese
>can eat goat once it dies or if you get tired of it
>can buy another goat and make more half-free goats

what's the practical application of this problem?

it's for people that conflate old odds for new ones.
At inception, a choice out of 100 equates to .01 shot to win. The host opens 98 doors, leaving your og choice and another.
Math rubes think you are ''''upgrading'''' from .01 to .5 by switching. But the original odds of picking either door as the correct one were both .01 then, and are both .5 now.
Switching doors doesn't improve your odds. It's just drama.

>the conditions of the problem change but we ignore them and not change the prediction based on new information

There is no such thing as chance, One of the doors has a car behind it. The other two don't. You either picked the right one, and thus have 100% "chance" or you didn't and have 0%.

your door has 1/3 chance

the others also have 1/3 chance each

the other two doors have a 2/3 chance combined compared to your 1/3 door

then one of the others is revealed to have goat behind it, so that door now has 0/3 chance. which means the remaining door of the two now must have 2/3 chance on its own, while yours still have the renaming 1/3 chance.

it's really that simple.

This theory only works if you're autistic - the World doesn't work like you think it does.

In reality - the host has to open at least one door, and cannot open your door. So it is still equally likely your pick, and the remaining door, has the prize behind it.

If your door had the prize from the start, there was never a scenario where the host would have opened your door - so it is always as likely you picked the correct one originally, or picked the loser one originally.

/thread

none exist

this is a problem created from the desired solution which is why changing any criteria makes the solution to the original problem invalid

>which means the remaining door of the two now must have 2/3 chance on its own
"no"

(Case 1) the prize is behind Door 1 (i.e., it is not behind either 2 or 3),
(Case 2) the prize is behind 2;
(Case 3) the prize is behind 3.

Since there is no prize behind the door the host opens, in Case 1 the host could open either door and you would win by staying with your original choice: door A. In Case 2 the host must open door C, and so you would win by switching to door B. In Case 3 the host must open door B, and so you would win by switching to door C. Thus, in two of the three equally likely cases, you would win by switching from A to the other closed door. In only one of the three equally likely cases would you win by staying with your original choice.

>Switching doors doesn't improve your odds. It's just drama.

It lets people who aren't really smart but spend a lot of time on the internet to condescend to others by saying wrong things with just enough logic behind them to pretend to be right.

when the host opens one of the other door, the entropy (i.e. uncertainty) of the three door system decreases with this new information to a 2 door system. The contestant then plays as if he has a new game in the 2 door system, which has decreased uncertainty in the targeted variable.

This increases the likelihood of winning.

Is this not just the gambler's folly? If you choose to keep your pick or change it you are making a completely different choice that is independent of previous information therefore still 50/50.

Which is more likely? The 1/100 that you got it right or the 99/100 that you got it wrong?

>none exist

So, it's basically a trick question made up by mathmeticians to appear smart?

>this thread again

Any questions?

No, it's just a mathematical peculiarity.

Sodachi is shit.

I don't think the guy was a mathematician but yes

it must, since the two doors clearly had combined of 2/3.

goat 0/3 + mystery 2/3 = together 2/3.

This

and here's what happens if you DON'T switch

I got into an argument about it, but then I decided to test it by picking a number between 1 and 3.

I figured out pretty quickly why I was wrong.

>Guess what, you had a 100 in a hundred chance of guessing the right door from the start. If you switch then it's 1/2.
No. You have a 99% chance of winning if you switch.

Probability thread? Probability thread!

But it's not bullshit. If you weren't so stupid you would understand

yup, just like 1+2+3+4+...=-1/12
>but muh proof

>Bruh just completely change the problem, then it makes sence
how about you have 100 doors, you pick one, then he randomly reveals 1 door, and you have a choice between the one you picked and the 98 other doors.

No,

shodor.org/interactivate/activities/SimpleMontyHall/

try it yourself, do it 30 times for staying and for picking new door, see what your results are

picking new door will always win out

>burger doesn't understand it can easily be solved analytically
>burger doesn't understand numerical simulations are only used in absence of analytical solutions due to complexity

>I'm too dumb to understand this so it must be a conspiracy

Whats the problem theres no question

How did this post go underrated

There's a 100% chance that door one does not have a goat, since door two has the back half of the goat behind it.

...

how did the tulpa of my waifu get locked behind a door?

Lefucku

the difference is when the door is opened you receive a new piece of information -- it is not the same problem as it was in turn 1. You can solve it using conditional probabilities. It's not hard, or trickery.

this is why this place is a containment board

>stem is superior spam all the time
>when something more complex then "solve for x" appears on the board half the people are confused

"Yeah but if I move the goatpost, then its true!"

Experiments prove that switching works. It's simply yet another proof that we are living in a fundamentally flawed universe and the Demiurge is a drooling retard.

What are the chances of having an Ougi behind the door?

I'd take the silver keys.

Numberphile did a lot of videos on this. Explained it pretty well that you should always switch (though they also called HTML a programming language so maybe they're full of shit).

...

>Only 7 games

Kill yourself

...

it will converge to 1/3 stayed and 2/3 if switched, this is very obviously

>you're getting suckered into the false belief the host has left the other door for some suspicious reason

The condition is that the host deliberately avoids picking the door with the prize behind it.

The day of the rake can't come soon enough.

If you can't understand the probabilistic model, just run through the test 50-100 times with your wife's son until you can see for yourself the actual likely consequences of the two choices.

No, my question was whether or not this had any practical application or is merely a bullshit mental masturbation exersize that mathematicians use to feel smug.

What is the point of this question, practically speaking, what can we learn from it?

Can we learn anything from it?

>There are 100 doors
>99 have goats, 1 has a car
>You pick one
>The host opens 98 goat doors and offers to let you switch

If you don't switch, you're clinically retarded; you only had a 1 in 100 chance of originally picking the car. It's the same when you reduce to three.

>what is law of large numbers

If your waifu was a silver key you could have three waifus with this one simple trick just something to think about

Only the dumb fucking leaf OP is being retarded

is converges on 1/3 and 1/2 you dumb compost pile.

large number of poles have slow internet?

You're brain is just to small to wrap around the problem dude. I questioned the numbers at first, but it makes sense. Kek praise the dude that mentioned using R earlier. He knows what he's talking about.

But its just as likely you picked the correct door in the first place - the host could never pick your door, so in ANY scenario the host is either avoiding the price, or avoiding nothing (as you already picked the prize).

FUCK YOU. IF THERE ARE ONLY TWO DOORS LEFT AND YOU PICKED ONE WITHOUT A GOAT BEHIND IT ITS A 50% CHANCE EITHER WAY

YOU DONT KNOW WHICH ONE ITS BEHIND SO BY DEFINITION ITS 1/2

i believe i get 84,3% with the silver keys