4 ms·
> It is literally explicit in the 1990 rendition. > You pick a door, say #1, and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door, say #3, which
by ncallaway 5y ago
> It is literally explicit in the 1990 rendition.
> 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
Remove the parenthetical example "say #3", and the parenthetical "who knows what's behind the doors" and that sentence reads: "...and the host opens another door which has a goat".
The "has a goat" is not a hypothetical example. It's a (both literal and explicit) declaration of the rules statement. The rules seem very clear that the host will open a door with a goat.
- slavik81 5y agoIt matters whether they choose the door because it has a goat vs. they randomly choose a door that happens to have a goat. It's not explicitly saying the former even when stating the result, because everything is written as a certainty in retrospect. You can say, "the roulette wheel stopped on 00," but it was still a random event when it happened.
- dekhn 5y agonope, it's ambiguous as stated, if you're a literalist.