5 ms·

Sure. This simulation shows the scenario OP described in his misunderstanding of the MHP, which is that he didn't realize the host was picking with foreknowledg

Sure. This simulation shows the scenario OP described in his misunderstanding of the MHP, which is that he didn't realize the host was picking with foreknowledge of which doors were which. So if the host doesn't know that and is himself simply picking a random door (and 1/3 of the time, revealing the prize), then switching does not improve your odds.

ALittleLight 4y ago
Foreknowledge has absolutely no effect. Again, go back to the problem I posed where Monty reveals a random door and has revealed a goat. Should you switch or not? The correct answer is that you should. Monty's knowledge has no effect on the problem or the player's choices. What has an effect is the information the player learns from seeing the revealed door. If the player sees a goat behind the revealed door - that is the relevant information. Whether Monty was surprised or not by the revealed goat is irrelevant.
- jdminhbg 4y ago
  This is just asserting the same thing over and over again. You can go upthread to the simulation to see that when you are in the "Monty showed you a goat" scenario, the results for staying and switching are equal. If you rewrite the simulation such that Monty always shows you a goat and look at the scenarios where "Monty showed you a goat" (i.e., all of them), you will see that switching wins.
  - ALittleLight 4y ago
    I'm not familiar with Clojure, so I can't point out the error in your simulation, but there undoubtedly is one. Here is a simulation in javascript that supports my point - https://pastebin.com/y5G4PE75 https://pastebin.com/y5G4PE75 And yes, your simulation should include that Monty always shows a goat. That is given in the problem statement.
    - jdminhbg 4y ago
      > And yes, your simulation should include that Monty always shows a goat. I feel like I've said this thirty times now, I'm specifically discussing a misinterpretation of the problem where Monty does not know what he's opening, so he sometimes opens a prize door. A game where Monty always opens a goat door is the original, correct Monty Hall Problem, and switching is the correct strategy.
      - ALittleLight 4y ago
        The parent comment that starts this thread[1] is antris writing "The fact that the show host knows what's behind the doors and never chooses a door with the prize behind it is crucial." (Emphasis added). Then, I reply[2], saying "I don't think the host's knowledge is important." I include an example where the host has no knowledge, but has coincidentally revealed a goat, and the best strategy remains switching. In other words, antris says the host's knowledge is crucial and I'm saying the host's knowledge is irrelevant, what matters is what was revealed. If you are talking about some other scenario - then why? I've just explained what this thread is about. Why would you invent an alternate scenario, not tell anyone about your alternate scenario, and argue that correct interpretations of the scenario I laid out in [2] are wrong because they don't fit with your interpretation of your private variation? 1 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31684653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31684653 2 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31683850#31684801 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31683850#31684801
        jdminhbg 4y ago
        You should update the Wikipedia article that is linked as the OP, since you disagree with its conclusions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#Other_host_behaviors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#Other_host_... If you scroll down to "Monty Fall," the description of the problem is "The host does not know what lies behind the doors, and opens one at random that happens not to reveal the car" and the solution is "Switching wins the car half of the time." (This is the result demonstrated in my simulation)
        4y ago

ALittleLight 4y ago

Foreknowledge has absolutely no effect. Again, go back to the problem I posed where Monty reveals a random door and has revealed a goat. Should you switch or not? The correct answer is that you should. Monty's knowledge has no effect on the problem or the player's choices. What has an effect is the information the player learns from seeing the revealed door. If the player sees a goat behind the revealed door - that is the relevant information. Whether Monty was surprised or not by the revealed goat is irrelevant.

jdminhbg 4y ago
This is just asserting the same thing over and over again. You can go upthread to the simulation to see that when you are in the "Monty showed you a goat" scenario, the results for staying and switching are equal. If you rewrite the simulation such that Monty always shows you a goat and look at the scenarios where "Monty showed you a goat" (i.e., all of them), you will see that switching wins.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  I'm not familiar with Clojure, so I can't point out the error in your simulation, but there undoubtedly is one. Here is a simulation in javascript that supports my point - https://pastebin.com/y5G4PE75 https://pastebin.com/y5G4PE75 And yes, your simulation should include that Monty always shows a goat. That is given in the problem statement.
  - jdminhbg 4y ago
    > And yes, your simulation should include that Monty always shows a goat. I feel like I've said this thirty times now, I'm specifically discussing a misinterpretation of the problem where Monty does not know what he's opening, so he sometimes opens a prize door. A game where Monty always opens a goat door is the original, correct Monty Hall Problem, and switching is the correct strategy.
    - ALittleLight 4y ago
      The parent comment that starts this thread[1] is antris writing "The fact that the show host knows what's behind the doors and never chooses a door with the prize behind it is crucial." (Emphasis added). Then, I reply[2], saying "I don't think the host's knowledge is important." I include an example where the host has no knowledge, but has coincidentally revealed a goat, and the best strategy remains switching. In other words, antris says the host's knowledge is crucial and I'm saying the host's knowledge is irrelevant, what matters is what was revealed. If you are talking about some other scenario - then why? I've just explained what this thread is about. Why would you invent an alternate scenario, not tell anyone about your alternate scenario, and argue that correct interpretations of the scenario I laid out in [2] are wrong because they don't fit with your interpretation of your private variation? 1 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31684653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31684653 2 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31683850#31684801 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31683850#31684801
      - jdminhbg 4y ago
        You should update the Wikipedia article that is linked as the OP, since you disagree with its conclusions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#Other_host_behaviors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#Other_host_... If you scroll down to "Monty Fall," the description of the problem is "The host does not know what lies behind the doors, and opens one at random that happens not to reveal the car" and the solution is "Switching wins the car half of the time." (This is the result demonstrated in my simulation)
      - 4y ago