3 ms·
The day this was published in Parade magazine, I was sure that she was wrong. Even though I was a computer programmer then (1990), I didn't own a computer. I d
by kahirsch 5y ago
The day this was published in Parade magazine, I was sure that she was wrong.
Even though I was a computer programmer then (1990), I didn't own a computer. I drove across town to my parent's house to use my father's computer to prover her wrong.
I didn't even have to run the program. Just the act of writing the program made me realize that she was right. When I was writing the part where the host picks which door to open, I had a revelation.
- Talanes 5y agoBecause in 2/3 scenarios you had to make the host choose the door without a car?
- glitchc 5y agoThe host can never choose the door with the car, because then the game is over. Ergo the host has to choose the door with goat, every time.
- dekhn 5y agothis constraint was unclear to me in the original problem statement, which is why I thought she was wrong, too. It wasn't until somebody wrote in a letter saying they wrote a computer program that I understand what the rules were, and then it was obvious. I wish the problem was stated more clearly to say, the host has to choose the door with goat.
- dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago> I wish the problem was stated more clearly to say, the host has to choose the door with goat. Yes, that one point would make many people instantly realize the probability changed. Nevertheless, you'd think mathematicians and statisticians sending her offensive letters should've known better.
- Talanes 5y agoRight, and the host is only making a meaningful choice in the 2/3 scenarios where you didn't pick the car in the first place.