Game has complex choices

People just get hung up on the semantics and phrasing. They refuse to alter their perception of when exactly the calculation should be taking place, and the idea that variables can change baffles them because they're too used to an understanding of mathematics where there is a question and then a solution. When I'm explaining it to people I find it helps to expand the number of doors to 100 and goats to 99. They're more easily able to notice there's something wrong with thinking a 1% chance suddenly turned into a 50% chance.

>Terrance Howard trying to explain how 1x1=2
hahaha, thanks

Doesn't matter how obvious the correct answer is, or how well you can explain it. The image was posted and now some autist who thinks he knows math will spend hours in this thread arguing that the right answer is wrong and that everyone except himself is just too stupid to see it.

>complex
it's mathematically solved and is very simple to understand once you understand the logic behind it

the main problem is that most people don't explain that the first door opening isn't important.

>you have two doors, one has a car the other has a goat
>whats your chances of finding a car?

technically its not 50% but that's the easiest way to explain it

>the main problem is that most people don't explain that the first door opening isn't important.
I'm not sure how that explanation works. Every part of the problem is important.

There need to be two goats and one car so that the player has a 2/3 chance of picking a goat initially. Revealing a goat after the player's initial choice is important because it's a goat which the player did not choose, which means that the remaining door hides a car if the player's initial choice was a goat. Therefore there's a 2/3 chance that the remaining door hides a car, and therefore switching is the right choice 2/3 of the time.

I just don't see how you can simplify this without changing the problem.

>>you have two doors, one has a car the other has a goat
>>whats your chances of finding a car?
>technically its not 50% but that's the easiest way to explain it

Yeah, I have no idea what you're talking about, unless you think 50% is the actual answer to the original problem.

Always switch

that strawberry path sounds like it'll be cute and funny

Doesn't sound very aspergers to me, are you sure he's not just an idort?

Fuck you...Junpei...

Attached: L8x.jpg (480x360, 12K)

Actually I remembered that the easiest way of explaining it is that when you pick 100 doors, you have a 1/100 chance of finding the goat.
removing all but 1 door that either has a goat or doesn't you are asked if you would like to switch.

What are the rules for this one again? Shift all the tiles from A to either of B or C in the correct order, and at now point can a small tile be beneath a larger one?

why does Bioware have a love affair with this puzzle

Then it's 50/50. It has a goat, or it has a prize.

Retard.

The thing that usually gets me to successfully make people understand how it works is stressing the idea that Monty Hall knows the answer. That's the important part. When he opens the first door he gives you information and that's what changes everything.

It's not quite 50/50 because you have to consider the chance you managed to land on the correct door in the initial guess.

Since you are more likely to guess incorrectly and swap to the correct answer than guess correctly and swap to an incorrect answer.

No it's the opposite, there's 99 goats and 1 car. You pick 1 door, then Monty opens 98 goat doors.

It all comes down to the fact that the host knows what is behind which door. He cannot reveal the car, it has to be a goat.

that's what I meant to say.

That's too much information for the other user to handle

I think you both mean the same thing, just user accidentally said goat as the prize instead of car

In other words people forget that Monty Hall is a gameshow host and not a fellow guessing contestant. That's a special kind of mental fuckup all on its own, which is forgetting or grossly misunderstanding the scenario.

>people think it's 50% still
Literal brain dead retards

Attached: 1555776816827.gif (262x300, 2.89M)

It doesn't matter if Monty knows, it only matters that the second door is a goat.

either you get the car or you don't, 50/50

Either you win the lottery or you don't.

What if I want to win a goat instead of a car? There's no problem here at all

That's not true. There's tons of different lottery results. Depending on the lottery this can come in the form of partial wins (guessing, say, 3/5 numbers right) or as prizes themselves (scratch offs that can give you $2 back or another ticket or other items or coupons.
That's why you're so unlikely to win the lottery because when you add up all of the other outcomes other than winning the actual jackpot it becomes just one among many. If it was just win or lose with no other possible result then it would indeed be 50/50. The devil's always in the details, that's how they get you.

MINDHACCCC

50%
next riddle please

this was when i know american posters were retarded.
then i read up on the beginning and aftermath of iraq war and wanted nothing to do with this blackhole of iq

>It doesn't matter if Monty knows
That's completely totally wrong.

goat door = renegade
non goat door = paragon

>pick a door
>1/3 chance of being right
>2/3 chance of being wrong
>assuming you're wrong, open second door
>goat
>still a 1/3 chance of being right, 2/3 chance goat is behind other door
Monty's knowledge doesn't come into it.

How can Monty reveal a goat behind the second door if he doesn't know where the car is? The second door is not opened at random.

It's not quite 50/50 because you have a 1% chance to fail on your first choice.

what kind of retarded ass gameshow would use goats as prizes

Attached: 1532801332008.png (397x217, 154K)

How would he open a goat to you if he didn't know where they were you absolute retard

>game offers the illusion of choice

Attached: 1553785331647.jpg (900x900, 155K)

Because it's the premise of the fucking riddle. You're not working backwards from Monty's logic to figure it out, it's just math. He opens a door, if it's the car then you lose, if it's a goat then you get the option to switch. Doesn't matter what the fuck he knows.

Move the tower as arranged to the last row but you can only move one piece at a time or something like that.

That isn't how the riddle works you mongoloid, he'll never open the door with the car he just shows you a goat

>He opens a door, if it's the car then you lose
The Monty Hall problem explicitly states he deliberately shows you a goat, which is something he will always be able to do no matter what you pick. You're changing the problem to suit your narrative.

>The Monty Hall problem explicitly states he deliberately shows you a goat
No, it just says that he shows you a goat, not that he does it on purpose. But my point is that it doesn't fucking matter because the math is the same anyway.

Yes because that's the premise of the riddle, there's a goat. But it doesn't matter what Monty knows, what matters is that there's a goat behind the door that opens.

>if it's the car then you lose
what the fuck are you talking about user

>No, it just says that he shows you a goat, not that he does it on purpose.

>Standard assumptions
>Under the standard assumptions, the probability of winning the car after switching is 2/3. Key to this solution is the behavior of the host. Ambiguities in the Parade version do not explicitly define the protocol of the host. However, Marilyn vos Savant's solution (vos Savant 1990a) printed alongside Whitaker's question implies, and both Selvin (1975a) and vos Savant (1991a) explicitly define, the role of the host as follows:

>The host must always open a door that was not picked by the contestant (Mueser and Granberg 1999).
>The host must always open a door to reveal a goat and never the car.
>The host must always offer the chance to switch between the originally chosen door and the remaining closed door.

?When any of these assumptions is varied, it can change the probability of winning by switching doors as detailed in the section below. It is also typically presumed that the car is initially hidden randomly behind the doors and that, if the player initially picks the car, then the host's choice of which goat-hiding door to open is random. (Krauss and Wang, 2003:9) Some authors, independently or inclusively, assume that the player's initial choice is random as well. Selvin (1975a)

This is establishing the premise of the riddle, it's a not a contradiction to what I said at all. The probability is the same whether the host knows what's going on or not.

>When any of these assumptions is varied, it can change the probability of winning by switching doors as detailed in the section below.
>The host must always open a door to reveal a goat and never the car.

Yes, if you present the riddle as him opening a door with a car behind then obviously the odds have fucking changed. He opens a door with a goat. That's the premise of the riddle. Whether he does this ON PURPOSE or not has nothing to do with the odds.

>The probability is the same whether the host knows what's going on or not.
>Yes, if you present the riddle as him opening a door with a car behind then obviously the odds have fucking changed.
Are you even reading the things you write?

Yeah I am and they make perfect sense. How do the odds change based on what the host knows?

If he always opens a door that you didn't pick and that has a goat behind it, then the odds of winning by switching are 50%

Imagine that you are playing against the Devil. He wants to trick you and eat you soul. Imagine that this Devil only opens the second door when you picked the correct door the first time, because he knows that it causes people to change their choice and it gives him 100% chance to win every time it happens. Do you still think that the behavior of the door opener cannot matter?

You're not playing against the devil, you're on a gameshow with Monty Hall. What you're describing isn't within the premise of this riddle.

This is just ignorant and shows you don't have a basic understanding of the math.

>>This is just ignorant and shows you don't have a basic understanding of the math.
user I'm going to ask you a series of questions. I want you to stop having an autistic spergout, and just give me a straightforward logical answer to each one.
First question: What are your odds of picking one of the doors that has a goat behind it on your first choice?

I don't get it, the goat's right there. Just go grab it

One in three. 1:3

Wrong user, there are two doors with goats behind them, and one door with a car behind it. Your odds of picking a door with a goat behind it are 2 in 3.

This is my mistake, I misread your question.

It is obviously 2:3.

Okay good, now knowing that, here's the next question:
Assuming you picked a goat door on your first try, and never switch doors when prompted, what happens?

Reminder if you don't swap you're a brainlet

Your odds of goat remain 2/3.

I said assuming you picked a goat door on your first try, but I can see that you get what I mean. Now let's say that you decide to always switch to change up your strategy. What happens after you pick a door with a goat behind it by chance, and then monty eliminates the other door with a goat behind it as per the rules of the contest (since he must open a door that both has a goat and wasn't picked the first time). What door remains for you to switch to?

The car.

Assuming I pick a goat on the first attempt isn't a part of the riddle.