@thenorfolkmafia
active 7 years, 1 month agoForum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I will bow to your superior knowledge of computer programming rather than trying to enter one myself, as it will probably end up with a pork sandwich being revealed at the door. To clarify, are you saying that after testing this, the end result is a negligible /no benefit from switching the door as Mister Q and I have stated?
Running the simulation with 3 doors staying with the initial door gives ~33% chance of winning, switiching doors gives a ~77% chance of winning. If you run the simulation with 100 doors instead, staying with the initial door gives ~1% chance of winning, switiching doors gives a ~99% chance of winning.
Your computer programme has gone wrong if it says there is a 1% chance of a straight shootout between 2 doors and a 50/50 chance. To clarify:
3 doors, 2 have goats behind , one has a car,contestant chooses one- doesn’t know whats inside and doesn’t open it. The host knows what’s in all 3 doors and chooses one of the other 2 doors the contestant doesn’t open that a goat lies behind . The contestant now is left with two closed doors, one must have a goat , one must have a car. The option is to switch doors and whether it improves statistical probability of choosing the car. It’s cant possibly be a 1 % chance of a car behind one of two doors where we know one has a car.
It takes one tap twelve minutes to run a bath, whilst it takes the other six minutes to fill it up. The plug has been left out how ever, and the bath will empty in eight minutes. If both taps are on full and the plug is left out, how long will it take for the bath to fill up, if it will fill up at all?
If it takes one tap 12 minutes and the other 6 minutes , the mean difference what it takes both taps is 9 minutes
If the bath empties in 8 minutes then the bath is filling up by ” 1 minutes worth ” of the 9 minutes it needs to fill up every 9 minutes. 9 x 9 = 81 to fill the bath logic would dictate
1 member liked this post.
81 minutes
Well first of all, people who go to University, take higher education etc are very intelligent people who have some amazing knowledge.
I’m not sure how much I agree with this. From my experience most people who go to university are of average or below average intelligence. And if they already had knowledge then there is no purpose in them attending a university course.
If people could live long enough, there would probably be people from hundreds of years ago alive still and still debating whether the earth is flat even though the evidence is plain to see today that it’s not. They just don’t want to believe it.
There are still people who believe that today.
It depends on the university as some polytechnics masquerading as universities offering a degree in ” media studies ” have an entry standard so low that practically writing your own name correctly would enable you to enroll. My father taught history at Cambridge and whilst it’s difficult to quantify intelligence, find it hard to believe isn’t a collection of extremely bright people by any measurable standard in attendance. Personally I think most universities are a complete waste of time with many offering generic degrees leading nowhere so the key is reduce the number attending, raise the bar of entry level requirements and tailor make degrees to specific jobs. My sister for eg has an English degree, bar teaching what use is it in the real world?
Hi drac, hope you are keeping well,
I will bow to your superior knowledge of computer programming rather than trying to enter one myself, as it will probably end up with a pork sandwich being revealed at the door. To clarify, are you saying that after testing this, the end result is a negligible /no benefit from switching the door as Mister Q and I have stated?
Must be the north pole as it doesnt have a time zone
1 member liked this post.
It seems so obvious that it remains 50/50 but begs the question why there are maths PHDs with no affiliation to the game show stating to the contrary. Perhaps a modern day rerun of the emperors new cloths for maths?
1 member liked this post.
Ok read the article………as far as i can see the contestant has 2 choices….to stay with his choice or the choice of the other door.Which is still a 50/50 gamble and makes no difference to the contestant in reality as he has no clue to which door either the car or goat lies behind. i think it’s done just for tense and dramatic effect. They did the same thing on Deal or No Deal where the contestant is left with a box and the banker gives him the choice to switch boxes. There’s no other point really only to add tension to the show. If the contestant knows that out of 2 doors he has the choice of opening, one has a car and one has a goat then it is a 50/50 gamble. The host has actually bettered the contestants odds by opening a door first and getting a goat…making the contestants chances greater as a 50/50 gamble is greater success rate than having to pick a door out of 3. The reason (in my opinion) that quiz shows do this switching technique is like i said to add tension to the show and great cheers from the audience if the right door is picked or big sighs and ooos if the wrong door is picked. This technique is some how seen as showing whether the contestant is some how shrewd and clever or reckless and greedy when in fact it’s just blind luck.
This is exactly my thought process as well but looking down the article , there are some very intelligent people saying otherwise which makes me question my initial opinion.
3 doors 2 have goats , one has a car behind it .. contestant doesn’t know whats behind any of them just the host. Contestant picks one door at random (door 1), host has to show a goat to the contestant illustrating which doors it’s behind ( door 2 or 3) . The contestant now has two doors , one has a car obviously and one has a goat. The argument is if he switches doors from one unknown door to another unknown changing his original choice of door, he increases his mathematical probability of getting the car to 2/3 instead of remaining with the current unknown door 1/2. If you read the link I posted , maths PHD graduates concur with this yet can’t see how it would be anything other than 50/50 whichever door is picked.
I’m in a fairly heated debate with someone on a football forum over probability and it’s an old age argument you may have encountered. To summarise , there are three doors, one has a car behind it and two have goats. The contestant picks one door and the host picks a door with a goat behind it leaving the door the contestant has picked and one more door. The host then offers the contestant the option of switching. My argument is it is now a 50/50 chance of having a car or a goat and switching doors is irrelevant but common opinion amongst PHD maths graduates is theprobability benefit of switching increasing the chance of getting to the car to 2/3 … how so?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem?wprov=sfla1
