Who is/was the smartest man in the world?

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Vortex22
By that logic, you will still have a 33% chance to get the car if you swtich doors, because "statistics can't change", the door that has already been opened still has a 33% chance to have the car behind it (even though we know the car isn't there).

Arg. You have the choice of the door you are at which is 33%. That statistic cannot change. The statistic for the other door can and will change since you are given relavant information about the other door.

Suppose you chose door A. Your percentage is 33% no matter what they say, UNLESS they tell you information about door A.

The percentage for the other doors A+B is always 67%, no matter what they say, UNLESS they tell you information about door A.

Thus, it stays at 67% if you switch since they don't tell you anything about door A.

 

[Vortex22]

Originally posted by: InlineFour

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: InlineFour
how do i explain the 50% part? since he shows you one of the doors is a goat, you know that there are only 2 doors left that could be the car.

Statistics don't change when you are given useless information. You had a 1/3rd chance of getting it right when you picked your door. You will always be 1/3rd chance right if you keep your door. That number cannot increase for any reason in this problem.

right, the probability will remain 1/3 if you don't change your decision. however, if you decide to change your decision and switch, most people will believe your chances will increase to 50% since one door is eliminated. i hope you understand what i'm trying to say.

It would be relatively easy to disprove. Just run a whole bunch of tests with this scenario and watch as the probability of getting the correct door is nearly identical whether or not the decision was changed.

 

[Vortex22]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Vortex22
By that logic, you will still have a 33% chance to get the car if you swtich doors, because "statistics can't change", the door that has already been opened still has a 33% chance to have the car behind it (even though we know the car isn't there).

Arg. You have the choice of the door you are at which is 33%. That statistic cannot change. The statistic for the other door can and will change since you are given relavant information about the other door.

Suppose you chose door A. Your percentage is 33% no matter what they say, UNLESS they tell you information about door A.

The percentage for the other doors A+B is always 67%, no matter what they say, UNLESS they tell you information about door A.

Thus, it stays at 67% if you switch since they don't tell you anything about door A.

I understand what you are saying, and it is theoretically correct. But if you were to run a test 2000 times where a computer randomly assigns the car/goat/goat to three doors, randomly chooses a door, then reveals a door with a goat behind it, then chooses to switch doors or keep choice I think you would find the rate of success for both choices at around 50/50, not 33/66.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: InlineFour
most people will believe your chances will increase to 50% since one door is eliminated. i hope you understand what i'm trying to say.

I do understand that most people will be incorrect. I've thought of this problem a lot since the last thread. Here is the most simple possible idea to give to those who cannot grasp the true idea:

Dullards Monty Hall Game Variation.
[*]There is one door - labeled Door A.
[*]There is one car.
[*]Choose a door, any door. [You choose Door A.]
[*]I now say there is a second door - labeled Door B.
[*]The car does not move. There is only a goat behind the non-car door(s).
[*]Are your odds now 50/50?
[*]Even the biggest idiots will realize that their odds don't drop from 100%. Unless I tell you something about door A that changes the game, you odds won't change if you stay.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Vortex22
I understand what you are saying, and it is theoretically correct. But if you were to run a test 2000 times where a computer randomly assigns the car/goat/goat to three doors, randomly chooses a door, then reveals a door with a goat behind it, then chooses to switch doors/keep choice, I think you would find the rate of success/failure at around 50/50, not 33/66.

It has been done thousands of times. The computer keeps saying 33/67. I even assigned this as an extra credit problem in my chemical engineering computations course. The students initially thought it would be 50/50 (if they hadn't heard the solution). But everyone who did the bonus simulation answered that the computer spit out 33/67. Try it yourself.

 

[Vortex22]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Vortex22
I understand what you are saying, and it is theoretically correct. But if you were to run a test 2000 times where a computer randomly assigns the car/goat/goat to three doors, randomly chooses a door, then reveals a door with a goat behind it, then chooses to switch doors/keep choice, I think you would find the rate of success/failure at around 50/50, not 33/66.

It has been done thousands of times. The computer keeps saying 33/67. I even assigned this as an extra credit problem in my chemical engineering computations course. The students initially thought it would be 50/50 (if they hadn't heard the solution). But everyone who did the bonus simulation answered that the computer spit out 33/67. Try it yourself.

Okay. I have to do this now.

 

[InlineFour]

kind of off topic, are you a math major, dullard, or anything that streses a lot of math?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: InlineFour
kind of off topic, are you a math major, dullard, or anything that streses a lot of math?

Chemical Engineering: BS, MS
Engineering with emphasis in Chemical Engineering and computer modeling: PhD

I took a lot of master's level math classes and one or two PhD level math classes. But I just don't like the theoretical math. Applied math is so much more interesting. I could never make it in an advanced math degree due to boredom.

Have a great night everyone.

 

[coomar]

Originally posted by: dullard

I took a lot of master's level math classes and one or two PhD level math classes. But I just don't like the theoretical math. Applied math is so much more interesting. I could never make it in an advanced math degree due to boredom.

Have a great night everyone.

i'm finding the same thing out now

 

[InlineFour]

i envy your intellect dullard.

 

[91TTZ]

It's ironic that one of the smartest guys on the forum is named "Dullard", while our longtime troll Guy Under The Bridge, AKA "The Super Genius", is one of the dumbest people I've ever argued with.

 

[newParadigm]

yay, monty is smart and i am not as smart

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: coomar
but from the wikipedia article on IQ, they said it tended to favour people strong in science/ math and bias against those strong in literature/ music so wouldn't the person with the highest IQ be a scientist/ mathematican?

Depends on the music. Stuff from today, then no. Music today is bland, basic, and uses few instruments. I remember hearing that hearing/composing complex music uses the same part of the brain related to math. Don't quote me on that though.

 

[thecrecarc]

Originally posted by: Legend
I remember hearing that hearing/composing complex music uses the same part of the brain related to math. Don't quote me on that though.

pwned....