The scams of Statistics...

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Scott. You are simply bloody wrong and what you're peddling here is mischievous pseudoscience which I can't just ignore. There is a wealth of literature on this subject, NONE of which supports what you claim, but why don't you just do the fucking experiment? It's been done millions of times before and EVERY SINGLE TIME the strategy of switching choices DOUBLES THE WINNING CHANCE.

How do you account for this empirical FACT???

Stop it Leo. The experiment is in my previous few posts by enumerating for them. Accusing me of pseudoscience is trolling. Instead of just stating your disgust, prove or disprove me here by participating with fairness. I granted you as much yet you seem to be acting with clear disrespect for me here. I am asking you to please try and do so with respect.

He just happens to be right, and the facts back him up, although no one here seems to understand my point.

[Obvious Leo]

Thank you for your moral support, VT, because to me this is not a trivial matter. The Monty Hall puzzle is not a matter of opinion but a matter of incontrovertible FACT and it is the fact that switching choices doubles the contestant's chances of winning the car. That's it. End of story. Game over. QED. Finis.

You can pack up your ones and zeros and fuck off home now, Scott, because you'll not get away with deliberately peddling falsehoods here for as long as I've still got a pulse.

[Scott Mayers]

Scott. You are simply bloody wrong and what you're peddling here is mischievous pseudoscience which I can't just ignore. There is a wealth of literature on this subject, NONE of which supports what you claim, but why don't you just do the fucking experiment? It's been done millions of times before and EVERY SINGLE TIME the strategy of switching choices DOUBLES THE WINNING CHANCE.

How do you account for this empirical FACT???

Stop it Leo. The experiment is in my previous few posts by enumerating for them. Accusing me of pseudoscience is trolling. Instead of just stating your disgust, prove or disprove me here by participating with fairness. I granted you as much yet you seem to be acting with clear disrespect for me here. I am asking you to please try and do so with respect.

EDIT addition: If you take the time to read on this, you'll discover that this problem is NOT universally accepted and only supported by about half of any experts.

As to empiricism, I do this above to which only if you actually participate do you qualify as an observer to the actual truth. If you "enumerate" for all possibilities, this demonstrates better than simply tossing dice unnecessarily. Given a coin, do you require tossing it many times to determine if the odds of Heads is 1/2 and Tails as 1/2 too? In fact, taking a statistic in nature can NEVER qualify with any absolute certainty as you only get approximations that hint at the truth.

[Obvious Leo]

Scott. How much more respect do you think you deserve? I've explained several times in different ways how this problem must be solved. However don't take my word for it, mate. There is a mountain of literature on the subject and more than likely you can even play the bloody game on the internet somewhere. Why don't you just try it?

[Obvious Leo]

As I suspected there might be there is a Monty Hall game running on the internet.

As of now 278,324 contestants decided to stay with their first choice and won a total of 93,286 pretend cars, a success rate of just below 34%

168,244 contestants decided to change their choice and won a total of 111,535 pretend cars, a total of 66%.

Scott. Would you care to name the parties responsible for staging such a massive global conspiracy or would you prefer to apologise to the members of this forum for treating them like morons.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Scott. You are simply bloody wrong and what you're peddling here is mischievous pseudoscience which I can't just ignore. There is a wealth of literature on this subject, NONE of which supports what you claim, but why don't you just do the fucking experiment? It's been done millions of times before and EVERY SINGLE TIME the strategy of switching choices DOUBLES THE WINNING CHANCE.

How do you account for this empirical FACT???

Stop it Leo. The experiment is in my previous few posts by enumerating for them. Accusing me of pseudoscience is trolling. Instead of just stating your disgust, prove or disprove me here by participating with fairness. I granted you as much yet you seem to be acting with clear disrespect for me here. I am asking you to please try and do so with respect.

EDIT addition: If you take the time to read on this, you'll discover that this problem is NOT universally accepted and only supported by about half of any experts.

As to empiricism, I do this above to which only if you actually participate do you qualify as an observer to the actual truth. If you "enumerate" for all possibilities, this demonstrates better than simply tossing dice unnecessarily. Given a coin, do you require tossing it many times to determine if the odds of Heads is 1/2 and Tails as 1/2 too? In fact, taking a statistic in nature can NEVER qualify with any absolute certainty as you only get approximations that hint at the truth.

It's actually amazingly simple. I admit that my first reaction was '1 in 3', until I thought about it a bit more. Watch the Mythbusters episode.

[Scott Mayers]

Scott. You are simply bloody wrong and what you're peddling here is mischievous pseudoscience which I can't just ignore. There is a wealth of literature on this subject, NONE of which supports what you claim, but why don't you just do the fucking experiment? It's been done millions of times before and EVERY SINGLE TIME the strategy of switching choices DOUBLES THE WINNING CHANCE.

How do you account for this empirical FACT???

Stop it Leo. The experiment is in my previous few posts by enumerating for them. Accusing me of pseudoscience is trolling. Instead of just stating your disgust, prove or disprove me here by participating with fairness. I granted you as much yet you seem to be acting with clear disrespect for me here. I am asking you to please try and do so with respect.

He just happens to be right, and the facts back him up, although no one here seems to understand my point.

I'm baffled at how most won't bother to actually try to read what I write and merely default to their own assumptions instead of dealing directly with reasoning on the arguments with fairness. If you've got something particular to prove or disprove outside of restating ones' favor to one side or the other, please enlighten me by participating.

It's actually amazingly simple. I admit that my first reaction was '1 in 3', until I thought about it a bit more. Watch the Mythbusters episode.

I already went through a phase where I agreed to the 2/3. Then I realized a 1/3 solution. And now, the 1/2 solution. I can't argue with you or others who won't bother pointing out my supposed stupidity if you don't challenge my arguments. I may be in the minority but accept the challenge and put the effort in this to argue. But you and Leo have already perceived one solution without actually enumerating for them as I did above.

I already understand the logic of the original problem. And it is 'acceptable' only given their input assumptions and the errors not easily recognizable at first. So I opt to begin by first laying out the problem's possible solutions. What particularly do you disagree to in the previous enumerations I demonstrated? This is at least essential before we move on into the other problems. If you at least 'see' where I may have erred, you can point it out to me specifically so that I can hopefully learn from your much greater wisdom.

Leo,
I already stated that if you initially use the very math that leads to the problem in a program set up that doesn't accept all possibilities by default, any tests based on such a program will only CONFIRM the expected result. As to your reasoning, I'll tell you what my mother used to say to us kids growing up when we asked why we could not have or do what our friends were doing: "If they all jumped off a bridge, would you follow?" [I probably would have back then, to be truthful. ]

[Obvious Leo]

It's actually amazingly simple.

It is breathtakingly simple once you understand what the question is.

Scott. It's not a matter of opinion and your proofs are meaningless because all they can prove is that which you already assume, as is the case for all mathematical proofs.

"Mathematics can be used to prove ANYTHING".....Albert Einstein.

[Obvious Leo]

As of now 278,324 contestants decided to stay with their first choice and won a total of 93,286 pretend cars, a success rate of just below 34%

168,244 contestants decided to change their choice and won a total of 111,535 pretend cars, a total of 66%.

Scott. Bear in mind the sample size and then tell me are you claiming that this is a statistical aberration? If so it is also an astonishing coincidence that it should be an aberration which conforms to the 2/3 prediction.

Since your claim is that for both of the above scenarios the success rate should be 50% then these statistics could only be an act of god because they are statistically utterly impossible according to your supposed "proof".

[Obvious Leo]

I'm going to have another go at a very simple explanation for why switching one's guess makes more sense than not switching.

This is ENTIRELY to do with the prior knowledge of the host of the game. He knows which doors reveal the goats and which reveals the car and you know that he knows this. This point is critical to the logic of this situation because this problem must be resolved with Bayesian logic and Bayesian logic is all about INFORMATION. This problem has NOTHING to do with mathematics.

If neither host nor player knows which door conceals the car then Scott is right. Once the host opens a door revealing a goat then the two remaining doors have an equal chance of revealing the car and this chance has increased from 1/3 to 1/2., It makes no difference whether or not you switch your guess and the reason for this is quite simple. There was a 1/3 chance that the host would reveal the car when he opened the first door and this possibility has now been eliminated. However this is not the situation with the Monty Hall puzzle. In the Monty Hall scenario there is NO CHANCE that the host will reveal the car with the first door he opens and the player is TOLD this. Thus his original 1/3 guess remains unchanged and the other 1/3 chance changes to 2/3

If you don't get it now, Scott, there is little more that I can say to you. You can't do logic.

[Obvious Leo]

The reason why so many of the greatest mathematicians of our age have been caught out by this puzzle is because they don't listen to the scenario. They immediately see it as a mathematical problem instead of as a prior knowledge problem. The player has one door and thus a 1/3 chance of being right. However the host has two doors and thus a 2/3 chance that the car must lie behind one of them. if it does indeed lie behind one of them he already KNOWS this and is obliged by the terms of the game to pick the other door.

I'm begging you to say that you now get this,Scott, because this is so fucking obvious that it's driving me nuts.

[Philosophy Explorer]

The reason why so many of the greatest mathematicians of our age have been caught out by this puzzle is because they don't listen to the scenario. They immediately see it as a mathematical problem instead of as a prior knowledge problem. The player has one door and thus a 1/3 chance of being right. However the host has two doors and thus a 2/3 chance that the car must lie behind one of them. if it does indeed lie behind one of them he already KNOWS this and is obliged by the terms of the game to pick the other door.

I'm begging you to say that you now get this,Scott, because this is so fucking obvious that it's driving me nuts.

It's also obvious Leo that by opening the third door to reveal the goat, it effectively changes the game to a choice between the first two doors hiding a goat and the car. It's like removing the third door out of play leaving just two doors now and the player doesn't know what the host has in his mind except that the player just knows one door now hides a goat and the other door hides a car making the odds 50/50 whether the car is behind door #1 or door #2.

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

Phil. The only problem with what you just said is that it's bullshit.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Phil. The only problem with what you just said is that it's bullshit.

Just show me where it's bs if it's so obvious.

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

I'm always intrigued about how people's minds work, Phil. Are you honestly saying that you can't understand this?