• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Who is/was the smartest man in the world?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant

"Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car, the others, goats. You pick a door, say #1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say #3, which has a goat. He says to you, "Do you want to pick door #2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice of doors?" ?Craig F. Whitaker, Columbia, Maryland

the answer is simple (well that you have to do an expected earnings/ tree diagram to check) the way its phrased in wikipedia
 
Originally posted by: coomar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant

"Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car, the others, goats. You pick a door, say #1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say #3, which has a goat. He says to you, "Do you want to pick door #2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice of doors?" ?Craig F. Whitaker, Columbia, Maryland

the answer is simple (well that you have to do an expected earnings/ tree diagram to check) the way its phrased in wikipedia
Click to expand...

Yes, you should always switch. This is the so-called Monty Hall problem.
 
Originally posted by: coomar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant

"Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car, the others, goats. You pick a door, say #1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say #3, which has a goat. He says to you, "Do you want to pick door #2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice of doors?" ?Craig F. Whitaker, Columbia, Maryland

the answer is simple (well that you have to do an expected earnings/ tree diagram to check) the way its phrased in wikipedia
Click to expand...

oh no!
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

Art and literature would probably be classified as a skill or a talent.

My thoughts.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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. Statistics don't suddenly change, it won't suddenly become 50%. In the same logic, if I add a 4th door, you aren't suddenly 25% correct (since the car must still be behind one of the first 3 doors, you are still 33% correct by staying). Or suppose I added 97 more doors, are you arguing that you now only have a 1% chance (even though you know the car is behind one of the first 3 doors)? Your odds don't change if I add or remove doors since the car doesn't move!

But, I'm not going to fight this again, see the other thread.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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. Statistics don't suddenly change, it won't suddenly become 50%. In the same logic, if I add a 4th door, you aren't suddenly 25% correct (since the car must still be behind one of the first 3 doors, you are still 33% correct by staying). Or suppose I added 97 more doors, are you arguing that you now only have a 1% chance (even though you know the car is behind one of the first 3 doors)? Your odds don't change if I add or remove doors since the car doesn't move!

But, I'm not going to fight this again, see the other thread.
Click to expand...

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). That doesn't make any sense, but neither does the 'paradox'. It's almost as stupid as the running a race and getting 50% closer to the finish line thing where you theoretically never reach it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top