BS: Monty Hall Problem

Subject: RE: BS: Monty Hall Problem
From: gnu
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 06:49 PM

"it certainly seems to invite a response from 'gnu'."

It certainly does not. Read the question and prove otherwise.

"Will gnu..." was the question. If the question is CLEARLY not addressed to me, how can you claim that my lack of response in any way credits your false arguements?

I am growing weary of this. Anyone care to offer any real arguements?

There are only two doors. It's a parlour trick... a ruse.

Subject: RE: BS: Monty Hall Problem
From: BK Lick
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 12:36 AM

Dear Gnu -- I'm sad that you misunderstood my remark that you need clarification, not mystification. You had correctly restated the rules and asked for confirmation. JotSC then stated that you had got the rules wrong for some unstated, mysterious reason. I was saying that JotSC was mystifying, instead of clarifying, the situation in his response to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Monty Hall Problem
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 03:20 AM

I am growing weary of this.

Aren't we all? I explicitly invited you answer the question about the odds on the card game in my last post and predicted you would not. Sure enough, that's what happened. Now its up to other people, not you or I, to decide why you avoid answering.

Subject: RE: BS: Monty Hall Problem
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 12:59 PM

BKLick wrote, "I was saying that JotSC was mystifying, instead of clarifying..."

That is an idiotic statement. You may not agree with what I answered, but I referred gnu back to ten days worth of explanations, the re-reading of which might help him in clarifying his understanding of the problem. What's mystifying is that you used the word mystifying.

BTW, it is nice of you to take up for gnu...I know him to be the shy, incoherent, retiring type who never speaks up for himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Monty Hall Problem
From: GUEST,Rev Bayes
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 02:20 PM

>>Those ARE the rules. PERIOD. FULL STOP.

Actually, no, you got them (subtly) wrong. After you have made your initial choice, you do not pick between two doors. You choose to stick or switch. Yes, the point is slightly semantic, but this seems to be where you're going wrong. It is *because* you can stick to the door you originally chose that the probabilities are not equal - because the probability you get a car to start with is 1/3.

Subject: RE: BS: Monty Hall Problem
From: gnu
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 06:00 PM

DMcG... card game? What card game? I thought we were talking about Monty and goats, no? Why would you talk about card games and not about goats?

I say there are two doors. Others still tell me I do not undertsand that there are three doors. I asked you all to ask Monty. I think you should.

Oh, BTW... DMcG... I don't care if you wanna change the subject. If you do wish to do so, start another thread.

gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: Monty Hall Problem
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 06:41 PM

Still not answering then gnu? I'm not changing the subject. There are a whole series of games, played with 3 doors and showing 1; 4 doors and showing 2; 5 doors and showing 3 and all the up to and beyond using 52 doors and showing 50, which is isomorphic to the deck of cards example. Whatever logic applies to the 52 applies to 51, 50, 49 ... all the way down to 3 doors and showing 1. All that adding extra doors does is make it more and more obvious that your argument is flawed. Which I am convinced you already know. Hence the somewhat wild attempts to say a question in a format commonly used in real-life and online forums is not one you were invited to answer, or that the logic differs whether we use a goat or a playing card.

So, no, thanks for the invitation, but while we are discussing Monty and its implications I will stay here.

Subject: RE: BS: Monty Hall Problem
From: BK Lick
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 09:46 PM

JotSC: "What's mystifying is that you used the word mystifying."
Well,let me try to demystify that. In response to my saying

Yes, those are the rules. I cannot fathom why JotSC said they are not.

JotSC replied

Perhaps my original answer was too hasty or too flippant. Perhaps I should have written, 'Yes, but...'. The "but" or "buts" have been noted several times in the past week.

which I characterized as mystification.

Subject: RE: BS: Monty Hall Problem
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 11:53 PM

BKLick, you mystify easily, or we have a different definition of the word. If gnu and you and any others can't get it by now, that's on you. The rules, and the precise way they work, and how they affect the chances of gaining the car have been explicated in many different ways, within over 200 posts. There have been grids showing the precise permutation of results, and the probability of ultimately winning the car. There have been numerous ways of showing how the contestants first choice affects the the forced action by the host, and why that takes the second choice out of the realm of pure luck. Finally, it has been shown how making consistent choices affect getting the car (and what that choice is), as opposed to random choices.

There is nothing mysterious nor mystifying about either the reasoning of the problem, nor in my referring gnu (but most probably YOU) back to the various posts on the subject. So, BKLick, read, study, learn and be well.

Subject: RE: BS: Monty Hall Problem
From: BK Lick
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 02:30 AM

I have been trying from the beginning of this long thread to help poor gnu overcome the difficulty he's been having in understanding this problem. It is not helpful when, having stated the rules of the game absolutely correctly and then asking for confirmation that he has indeed understood the problem correctly, gnu is then told by you that no, he had not stated the rules correctly.

JotSC, let me tell you that I find your last post insulting -- you think I don't get it, do you? I'm a Ph.D. mathematician whose research was largely in mathematical logic. I suggest that you refer back to the various posts on the subject, paying particular attention to yours and mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Monty Hall Problem
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 10:51 AM

That, sir, is how I found your previous two posts, and responded in kind...although I usually try not to do that. I don't expect to be responding more to this thread, nor re-reading it any longer. It's been cutting into my other activites. I probably will, I admit, I may visit it just to see how many ways folks deny the logic and probability of the winning car, and how long it takes for the thing to close.

BTW, congratulations on your degree. I know that required a lot of time and more effort. But I know that the Hall Problem does not require a PhD to correctly understand it. For the record, I worked for several years at a job, test development, which required statistical analysis. I got an A in each of two UCLA courses, and the understanding of combinations and permutations, regression, correlation, confidence limits etc. That's not needed, either, except for permutations, to solve the Hall problem. Also, I read some on Game Theory, which, I admit, I did not fully understand beyond the basics, and I still don't. But I know enough for the Hall Problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Monty Hall Problem
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 11:05 AM

One problem is that the 50%ers insist on viewing it as a choice between two identical doors.
They are not identical, the contents behind them differ.
They also differ in that the competitor has already chosen one, at a time when he may, logically, have believed it had a 1/3 chance of being the one with the car.