3 ms·
As someone who misunderstood the problem as you describe, I'm much more invested in this version of the problem :) The problem statement is just a mess: > You
by kristjansson 3y ago
As someone who misunderstood the problem as you describe, I'm much more invested in this version of the problem :)
The problem statement is just a mess:
> 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.
even tiny edits like:
> You pick a door, say #1, and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door which has a goat, say #3.
or even
> You pick a door, say #1, and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door, say #3, which he knows has a goat.
make it clear that the last phrase is describing an invariant of the problem, not an artifact of the illustrative hypothetical.
- svantana 3y agoThat's much better, but still not enough. We also need to add that the host will open a door regardless of which door I initially choose.
- kristjansson 3y agoAh yeah, good point: > You pick a door and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens exactly one of the two remaining doors according to the following algorithm: if both doors contain goats, he picks a door at random, else he picks the door he knows to contain the goat.