What was the hardest redpill for you to swallow Sup Forums?
For me it was that Monty hall problem. I've read all of the explainations it still doesn't make any fucking sense how 1 unknown has a higher probably than the other own know when they are, for all intents and purposes the same in every way. en.m.wikipedia.org
As a fag my hardest choice was to choose whether to fuck your mom or you dad
getting on board with social justice was quite the lurch
Y OU!
Why do I care if you fuck my loser parents?
That all women are subs. This is really hard for me to accept, cause I'm a sub too, so it fucks it all up.
You could be a genuinely nice guy but women have a lust for assholes. Even if they are horrible people. Human nature I guess.
Yea I still fight myself on that one because they have ok points about somethings, but what fucking cucks
andy sixx' was the hardest swallow :(
I mean, there are insane people everywhere but a lot of the more general points are sound
washed penis
People steamroll other people without realizing it all the time.
People have this look in their eyes like they are good people but fail to realize how full chaos they are.
they're not the same, retard
the people opening the door never open the one with the shit behind it. so it's NOT an unknown to them. you and everybody else is acting like the door they open and show you is random. it's not
three doors. A, B and C. lets say the shit is behind door A
you pick A, they open either B or C, you switch, you're wrong
you pick B, they open C because they have to, you switch, you're right
you pick C, they open B because they have to, you switch, you're right
that's a 2/3 chance whereas your original guess was a 1/3 chance
how is this hard
original guess is raised to 1/2 after they show open door, but point remains
Either my door or the other one has the shit, there are 2 fucking doors 1 with the prize and one with a goat. 50 fucking 50. The host has nothing to do with it.
i literally just showed you why it was 2/3. are you fucking retarded?
but in that case, taking into account the pdated information, it is still 2/3 if you choose not to change
no it's not, it's 1/2.
there's one door with shit behind it. there's also one open door shown without anything behind it, that is taken out of the picture because it is a known quantity. probabilities deal with the unknown. that leaves a 1/2 chance if you don't switch.
if you switch, there are two scenarios where it's right and only one scenario where it's wrong, as shown above
For me it is easier to understand if we use a case with many more than 3 doors.
Let us say there are 100 doors and you choose door 69 because youre and edgy Sup Forums fag.
Now the guy takes away 98 doors which are not the right door, and only leaves the door you originally picked and door 42.
At the start you had 1 in 100 chance of picking the correct door so your door has a 1 in 100 chance of being correct.
Door 42 was either A) randomly picked from the remaining 99 doors because you won the 1/100 chance or is the correct door and was specifically selected for said reason.
Due to the problem always picking the correct door if it is in the remaining group after your first pick, that door is a collective of all the probabilities of the remaining door.
If you picked door 69, you had 1/100 chance of being right. The other 99/100 chance is that it is one of the remaining doors. It doesnt matter which one specifically just that its highly likely that one of those 99 doors is correct. Thus when it is said that 98 of those remianing doors are specifically not the door the remaining door is as likely as the entire group of 99 doors.
Did this make more sense user???
oh yeah, half either way my bad
look, this isn't fucking hard. say prize is behind door A.
not switching:
pick A, they open B or C, you don't switch, you're correct
pick B, they open C, you don't switch, you're wrong
pick C, they open B, you don't switch, you're wrong
1/3 chance to be right. it appears to increase to 1/2 when they open a door (but it really doesn't because they're always gonna open a door)
switching:
pick A, they open B or C, you switch, you're wrong
pick B, they open C, you switch, you're right
pick C, they open B, you switch, you're right
2/3
Op simple solution. Think about it, if you had a 1/3 chance to get it right the answer you pick was most likely wrong since you were 2/3 as likely to have picked the wrong door from the first place. So the smart thing would be to switch since you had a higher chance of picking the wrong door than picking the right door from the start. Doesnt guarantee you will get it right but the probability is higher if you switch.
but they open the first door after you choose, before offering to switch.
your first choice is always a goat, meaning that after you have made your first choice, there will always be a 50/50 chance between the last two doors.
Reddit trp
>Inb4 redditfag
They took it down because it was too legit
Actually yea, that helps, it's still hard for me to get though. It's because my brain flattens the problem and tries to oversimplify. Your explaination helped tho.
The thing is they open the door after you choose. If you chose door 1 then you would have a 1/3 chance of being right.
You would agree that there is a 2/3 chance that it is in either door 2 or 3, correct??
Now they remove all the incorrect doors from the group you didnt pick. So if 3 was removed it is essentially turning the entire group into a single selection.
Think of the problem as, "user, there are 3 doors. Each door is equally likely to have that sweet lolicon you love behind it. You can either choose door 1. Or you can choose both door 2 and 3. What is your choice?" You are an autist if you choose 1 door over 2 since each door is equally likely.
the guy who opens one door with a goat does not just open a door wich happens to be a goat behind, but he KNOWS he opens a door with a goat behind
its just a matter of the right formulation
what do you mean your first choice is always a goat? that's false
Mfw I fuck the goat I won by staying with my first choice
i know how it works why are you responding to me
Virgin detected
the first door the presenter opens, i mean
this goes deeper than mathematics. the door the presenter opens for you is ALWAYS a goat. he NEVER reveals the car. if the question was pure maths, the presenter would have approximately a 1/3 chance of revealing the car, but he never does. this means that the presenter KNOWS where the car is. now ask yourself, why would the presenter give you a chance to change your mind if he was trying to make the best economic play for his show. it's because he knows you had it right in the first place, and wants to trick you into switching.
The hardest red pill: it really is the Jews.
I fucking love b when I'm drunk
the only true red pill
Not if they give the option to every contestant every time.
what if they reveal the car first?
The idea of it ia like this:
There are three doors. One is correct. You pick one. You have a chance of 1/3 of getting it right. Most likely you have picked the wrong door.
Now, one of the incorrect doors are removed. That means that there are only two doors left. One door that is the correct door. The other that is incorrect.
Since you most likely picked the wrong door first (2/3 times you did), the other door is likely to be the right one. 2/3 times the other door is the right choice.
No, it increases to 2/3. 2/3 timea your first pick is wrong, which means, 2/3 times switching is right.
No. It is 2/3.
no, with the updated information there is a 50/50 chance that the car is behind either of the two doors. when you first picked a door, it was a 1/3 chance. now, under the new parameters, both doors have a 1/2 chance.
You clearly did not read what I wrote or you are too dumb to understand or you are not trying or this is bait. Either way, I am off. Nn
I'm not sure I believe in probability. Don't see how anything can be perfectly random. If the data doesn't look random enough they discard it. That isn't truly random. And that coin flip thing. Everyone does the flipping different - how could it average out - why would it?
Trust me they aren't. in fact almost none of them are.
>look, this isn't fucking hard
yeah it is, and dudes with math PHDs were arguing this shit for years and even mocked the person who first came up with your 2/3 solution.
is there any reason to change your pick? seems that staying where you are has the same advantages as changing.
I think we all know what the hardest pill to swallow is
i read what you wrote, but your initial inference is flawed
in this scenario, there is not a 1/3 chance of you getting it right the first time, there is already a 1/2 chance. this is because the presenter ALWAYS opens a door revealing a goat, meaning that there was already a 1/2 chance of choosing the car. this doesn't change when the presenter opens the door, because it is already written into the puzzle that he will open a goat door.
the whole premise is flawed and people just pretend to understand it to feel smart. shitheads, the lot of you.
I like this explaination the best
Different user here. The door the announcer opens is dependent on the door you choose, the announcer will NEVER open the door without the goat. If he could then yes, it would be 50/50 but since he cant the likelyhood that it is behind the door that he did not open yet isnt your door goes up.
and your current doors likelyhood is less
I DON'T FUCKING GET IT
HOW IS IT NOT 1/3
FUCK MY FUCKING LIFE
read
it's not though, because anything that happens before the first door is opened is irrelevant
it is written into the puzzle that the presenter will, at some point, open a goat door. this means that only the doors that he does not open are relevant to the puzzle. yo may as well start the logical exercise AFTER he opens the door. i.e., there are only two doors that matter. there is always a 1/2 chance that the car is behind one of these doors, no matter what happens in the puzzle. there was never a 1/3 chance that the car is behind the door you choose.
It makes perfect sense. Write it out on paper and you'll see immediately that you should change your answer.
This has nothing to do with redpill altright bullshit. Leave your shitty American politics out of math and science.
This is always the example I give.
With 3 doors at first your chances of picking the right door is 1/3. With 100 doors it's 1/100.
1) All the other doors you didn't choose are opened except one.
2) There is 2 doors remaining in both cases. Which leads poeple to think about a 50-50 chance.
3) You have the chance to switch or stay with your choice.
With the 100 doors, the presentator has 99% chance to have in his package of doors the right door, right? If he opens all of his doors except one, the chance of having the right door is still 99%.
Samething with only 3 doors, he has 2 doors out of 3 for him, meaning he has a 2/3 probability to have the right door. Doesn't matter if he shows you one or not.
Yup. Retarded.
...
>anything that happens before the first door is opened is irrelevant
wrong. say you picked the correct door to begin with. announcer can open either wrong door. if you pick the wrong door to begin with, the announcer can only open the other wrong door. the 2 trials are not independent.
The hardest redpill to swallow is that there are faggot children with hardly any life experience unironically going around talking about redpills like they know fuck all about the world.
The shit pol is pushing about the holocaust being fake
But through your means of thinking a future event affects the outcome of a past decision. Sure he will always open a goat door, but lets take this same problem a different way. Lets say 2 of the 3 doors are prizes and one is a goat door, but he always opens the remaining goat door if you did not choose it.
Scenario 1 you choose good door 1. He opens the goat door and you stay with your door to win the prize.
Scenario 2 is the same as one except you choose the other winning door.
Scenario 3 you choose the goat door. The announcer cant open the goat door because you have it so he opens 1 prize door.
From your logic you could say. Well I got a 50/50 chance that that other door he didnt open is the goat door.
That reasoning is autistic. Of course it isnt the goat door because he would have opened it if it was. Your door is 100% the goat door.
The fact he always opens 1 of the goat doors doesnt mean that door doesnt matter. As you can see in my slightly different example, the opened door does affect the feasable possibilities remaining.
exactly, the announcer can never open the car door, which means the thought experiment is misleading
you don't seem to understand how probability trials work. you can literally tabulate this experiment and see exactly how it works out to 2/3 (or for n doors, (n-1)/n)
yo're completely changing the premise of the game to suit your own agenda. there are not 2 prize doors, there is one prize door.
in your scenario, you may as well leave the scenario as it is, with 1 prize and 2 goats, and say he will always open the prize door. you're changing the whole question.
also, in this hypothetical situation the 'future event' does effect the outcome of a past decision, because you have information that there is no way you could possibly have in the real world. for this scernario to be realistic, you would have to know the future (i.e. that the presenter will open a goat door), and if you know the future then a future event could effect a past decision.
I know this isn't how statistics work, but say you pick a number that is common or stands out as a "preferred" number of you will. Say #1 or #100 or edgy #69. Then the host opens all doors and leaves an unpreferred door # closed, like door #62 or #93. Those numbers do not mentally stand out to us, and considering that they don't stand out then we are hardwired to think that the outlier number would be the correct door because why would the host leave that one door in particular unopened?
Lets take a scenario in which you pick an unpreferred number instead where the actual car is behind a preferred number. You picked 37, car is behind door 1. Now statistically the car is more than likely behind the door the host did not open, however you put yourself at a disadvantage. You mentally put yourself into a position in which you involuntarily think that your door is the right one because it is behind a weird, unpreferred number 37 instead of the "obvious" door #1.
Therefore it is far better to choose a generic number as your own and then switch to the host number so that our natural, bullshit way of thinking doesn't get in the way of you winning.
There is an online simulation going for ages. If you can't understand, it's perfectly fine. But at least acknowledge that you are wrong. Pic related, living proof. Imo the best explanation you can find is this guy If you want to play the simulation game:
stayorswitch [dot] com
pic related, it's the simulation
m'lady
Monty Hall problem, seriously FUCK THAT. I refuse to believe it. It's fucking bullshit. Actually, it's not that I refuse to believe it... I simply challenge any human to explain it to me in a way that makes sense. I read the wikipedia link. Does not fucking convince me in the slightest! It says Paul Erdos was unconvinced until shown a computer simulation... I'd like to see that simulation. This fucking thing infuriates me.
Thank you
Holy shit this guy just made it sound sensical. Sup Forums rules
i just linked it...
see
give us the sauce ya dummy
That red pills don't really exist.
Pac died cuz of sum gang bang shit
Hey that was really good, and very much red pilled me on this problem
that as a man, i am completely disposable. the only person who will ever genuinely give a shit about me is my parents
idiot can't even scroll up 1 fucking post
Well they gave birth to you so they...
yeah, I guess they're losers
the one im struggling with now is that this is it when it comes to life.
Asking for redpill on a fucking math problem.
This. OP doesn't deserve all these fucking explanations.
Read my post again very... Slowly... Everybody got it wrong. But thanks for wasting your time autists. Any excuse to sound smart, amirite?
It's not about being an asshole, it's about having confidence. It's just that assholes have a lot of confidence that they get women.