Suppose instead we expand the number of doors to 52 and play it using a deck of cards. Your goal is to pick the ace of hearts from the deck in Monty’s hand. You start by picking one card from the deck, but you don’t get to look at it. You leave it face down on your side of the table. Then Monty looks at the 51 cards remaining in the deck and deliberately picks out 50 of them that are not the ace of hearts. He lays down these 50 cards so you can see them. Then he gives you a choice: Do you want to stick with the original card you chose, or switch to the one card in his hand that he hasn’t yet shown you?
BTW, if you ever needed greater proof that Yahoo! Answers is mostly populated by people that only pretend to know what they're talking about: Link
So let's look at it [the Monty Hall problem] again, remembering that the original answer defines certain conditions, the most significant of which is that the host always opens a losing door on purpose. (There's no way he can always open a losing door by chance!) Anything else is a different question. [emphasis mine]
Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car, behind 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
Monty opening the doors does nothing but confuse you. Revealing the no-prize doors in the second set really just distills the second set down to a single high probability choice, instead of n-1 different choices.
"Then, three objects that are rated equally (say rated 4) are chosen for use in a second stage of the experiment. Note, importantly, that the discreteness of the scale leaves open the possibility that these items might not be perfectly equivalent; for example, a subject may 'truly' rate one of the items 4.1, one 4.26, and one 4.3."
"Note that the analysis above assumes that subjects are never completely indifferent between two options; that if pressed they can always decide which of two options they prefer. Economic theory suggests that this is by far the most likely case, but even if subjects can be indifferent (which a discrete rating can never show) the above analysis does not change; the computation simply becomes more difficult."
"Note that the analysis above assumes that subjects are never completely indifferent between two options; that if pressed they can always decide which of two options they prefer."
« Older Max Koch is a writer/actor who does a few impressi... | Helen Keller speaks.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt