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

They said a lot of people can't get the problem because of stress on working memory. Even PhDs were writing in arguing the solution haha.

In this puzzle it seems to me that there would be a 50% 50% chance of guessing right in the end but maybe I need to read the rules again. Basically you have three doors. Two have a goat and one a car. You pick one, then someone eliminates one of the other as having a goat. Then you can either switch your choice or keep it. Apparently if you switch you have a 67% chance of getting the car. To me it seems it would be 50.

Now I think I get it but maybe it's just because I've seen a video on youtube explaining it and a page that has visitors pick a door and then records results. I think I just trust the explanation rather than understand it fully lol.

## another strike against my working memory:

### Re: another strike against my working memory:

This is something that my brain doesn't always want to accept, despite being familiar with the proof. I remember feeling similar about 1=.9999... or x^0=1

### Re: another strike against my working memory:

I love the Monty Hall problem as well as other problems that challenge my usual way of thinking.

It's easy to miss that the host's decision to open a false door adds information to the problem. We don't just learn that at least one of the doors we didn't pick was wrong. We should deduce that from the problem. We also effectively combine two possibilities into one. "It's not our door" was always at 2/3rds odds. Now we know which "not our door" has those odds.

It helps to think about 10 doors. You pick one. The host opens eight other doors, deliberately revealing that they are all wrong. Your odds of picking right were 1/10. They're still 1/10. The other closed door most likely *couldn't* be opened. It could be the 2nd or the 4th door.

This is how I think about it.

Now, if the doors are guarded by three guards, one tells the truth, one lies, and the third opens a door and offers you a choice, you're in hell.

It's easy to miss that the host's decision to open a false door adds information to the problem. We don't just learn that at least one of the doors we didn't pick was wrong. We should deduce that from the problem. We also effectively combine two possibilities into one. "It's not our door" was always at 2/3rds odds. Now we know which "not our door" has those odds.

It helps to think about 10 doors. You pick one. The host opens eight other doors, deliberately revealing that they are all wrong. Your odds of picking right were 1/10. They're still 1/10. The other closed door most likely *couldn't* be opened. It could be the 2nd or the 4th door.

This is how I think about it.

Now, if the doors are guarded by three guards, one tells the truth, one lies, and the third opens a door and offers you a choice, you're in hell.

### Re: another strike against my working memory:

Everything was cool until your last paragraph. Maybe this will keep me entertained on my long car ride coming up.

### Re: another strike against my working memory:

hahaha sonic

what if I want the goat instead of the car?

what if I want the goat instead of the car?

spacefem wrote:All your logical argue are belong to us!

### Re: another strike against my working memory:

Is the first door 67% and the switch door 33% chance of goat? If it's not I want to know what it is!!

### Re: another strike against my working memory:

I get it, I just don't like it. It's basically math's way of saying I made the wrong choice and need to pick again. Math needs to STFU.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.

And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.

Sonic# wrote:If these opinions don't matter to you at all, then you are unfit for conversation

### Re: another strike against my working memory:

I hate when I can't understand the "why" of math. Like why do you square in variance instead of absolute value. I don't understand how squaring is more meaningful. Or Pythagorean theorem I just don't get conceptually or intuitively why.

### Re: another strike against my working memory:

monk wrote:I get it, I just don't like it. It's basically math's way of saying I made the wrong choice and need to pick again. Math needs to STFU.

lol

### Re: another strike against my working memory:

when I get stumped conceptually in math I have to remember it took thousands of years to get where we are today with it. It wasn't just one genius sat down and figured it all out in one sitting. Even Einstein had to read math books before he became prolific.

Return to “Science & Technology”

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests