-
Posts
-
I assume that a “Open University means for us a Community College in which the cost is cheaper..these colleges require a well written letter by the potential new student, goals, reasonses..so forth if attend.
The Open University is the only (fully) public university in the UK. It has lower tution fees than the (semi) private universities, but it’s main feature is that it is primarily a distance learning platform.
But basically I call these types of college refresher courses from High School, as you have to do this in the first Freshman year.
No university will accept applicants with only secondary school qualifications, they must first gain A-Level qualifications after two years of study in VI form, or an NVQ qualification from a college if the university has especially low entry requirements. (College and university are very different things in the UK).
Bottom line today which as for you and us as well, think,degree is very necessary today. With a degree, more room to advance in company, also more pay. No degree,jobs are getting increasingly difficult for many.
Most degrees aren’t worth the paper they are printed on, they are only necessary due to an effect that might be described as qualifcation inflation. If a job applicant does not have a degree then it is a sign that they are abnormal in some way, as most other people will have one, therefore making them more of a risk to hire.
2 members liked this post.
I thought you were brighter than this drac, what do you think is the answer to this question out of curiosity ?
I replied to the thread with my calculation.
To summarise then , you believe if someone is left with 2 doors with a car behind one, there is a better chance of getting the car by switching doors. Aside from the computer programme, can you offer a logical explanation as to why?
To summarise then , you believe if someone is left with 2 doors with a car behind one, there is a better chance of getting the car by switching doors. Aside from the computer programme, can you offer a logical explanation as to why?
That is correct.
The easiest way to explain this is that there is always a 100% probability of the car being behind a closed door. Which gives a probability of any of three doors having a ~33% chance of having the car if all doors are closed. This part I assume everyone agrees with.
When the goat door is opened it’s probability of having a car is reduced to 0%, so the 33% it previously had must be transfered to one of the other doors, as there is still a 100% chance of there being a car behind one of them.
The door the contestant originally chosen has a fixed chance at the time they selected it, so the probability must then be transfered to the only other unopened door. Giving it a ~66% chance of having the car.
To summarise then , you believe if someone is left with 2 doors with a car behind one, there is a better chance of getting the car by switching doors. Aside from the computer programme, can you offer a logical explanation as to why?
That is correct. The easiest way to explain this is that there is always a 100% probability of the car being behind a closed door. Which gives a probability of any of three doors having a ~33% chance of having the car if all doors are closed. This part I assume everyone agrees with. When the goat door is opened it’s probability of having a car is reduced to 0%, so the 33% it previously had must be transfered to one of the other doors, as there is still a 100% chance of there being a car behind one of them. The door the contestant originally chosen has a fixed chance at the time they selected it, so the probability must then be transfered to the only other unopened door. Giving it a ~66% chance of having the car.
I understand the logic of what you have written but can’t correlate it with the basic premise of there being two doors with an equal chance of the goat or car being behind either. I have an issue with the “fixed probability” chance of the original door which must surely like the second door now alter in probability. Just because the initial choice was 33.3 % , doesn’t mean that remains static after new information comes to light ie the opening of door 3 and the goat which logically must mean each door now has a 50/50 chance.
I understand the logic of what you have written but can’t correlate it with the basic premise of there being two doors with an equal chance of the goat or car being behind either. I have an issue with the “fixed probability” chance of the original door which must surely like the second door now alter in probability. Just because the initial choice was 33.3 % , doesn’t mean that remains static after new information comes to light ie the opening of door 3 and the goat which logically must mean each door now has a 50/50 chance.
This is why I gave the number when there are 100 doors, it’s easier to understand the effect.
Basically what I am saying is the first doors fixed 33.3% probability chance now alters when the third door is opened and the fixed chance of 33.3% of door 3 gets split between door 1 and 2 equally creating a 50/50.
After considering your 100 door analogy, your logic is sound. It’s divided Maths PHD students so no wonder it’s up for debate on here. Mr Q I would say dracs 100 door analogy proves we are talking bollocks , second time tonight for me after the “tap ” question.
It’s a truly bizarre scenario but the logic is irrefutable , switching doors increases the chance of finding the car. The only way of testing anything is to apply it to a different number and you would have to be stark raving mad to say the chances of picking a door with a car out of 100 random doors is 50/50 by removing 98 leaving 2 staying with your original choice. I tip my hat to you again drac1 member liked this post.
Basically what I am saying is the first doors fixed 33.3% probability chance now alters when the third door is opened and the fixed chance of 33.3% of door 3 gets split between door 1 and 2 equally creating a 50/50.
Right now i’m not sure how else to explain it.
But you can run the simulation by hand if you have a pack of cards. If you replace the car with the ace of spades, and the goats with the 2 of hearts and the two of diamonds. If you place all three cards face down and shuffle their positions randomly you will see that you find the ace of spades more often when you switch cards. (Although this method allows you to accidently choose the ace when you eliminate a door, you would have to re-shuffle the cards in this case).
t’s divided Maths PHD students so no wonder it’s up for debate on here. Mr Q I would say dracs 100 door analogy proves we are talking bollocks
It confused me at first too. I had looked at the problem in the past, but I had forgotten what the correct solution was.
Writing the simulation helped me to understant why this happens when you switch door.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!