4 ms·
I don't think your interpretation of the sentence is sensible. The sentence mentions that the host knows what's behind the doors. So, if he is allowed to open t
by calderknight 3y ago
I don't think your interpretation of the sentence is sensible. The sentence mentions that the host knows what's behind the doors. So, if he is allowed to open the door with the car, the problem would become insoluble and would just be about speculating on the host's personality. And it definitely doesn't support the conclusion that the probabilities become 50/50.
- kragen 3y agoit's pretty counterintuitive that his personality enters into it, isn't it?
- calderknight 3y agoIf the format of the game allows him to show the car to the player, how could his personality not enter into it? In every case where the player picks a goat-door, the host will be presented the option to either reveal the car or the goat. I mean, one can imagine various complicated scenarios in which the host might reveal the car exactly 50% of the time in such cases, but none seem like they can be reasonably arrived at.
- kragen 3y agoit turns out that there is in fact no way that his personality could not enter into it, but that was not obvious to me until i did the simulation. even if he chose to reveal the car exactly 50% of the time in such cases, that would be a result of his personality, wouldn't it?
- calderknight 3y agoYou can imagine factors other than his personality, but they're all equally as speculative. Additional rules to the game, for example.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- calderknight 3y agoNot logical. It doesn't follow from the assumption that the host would not pose the question "Hey, here's the car, wanna switch?" that the contestant would automatically lose. You could just as well speculate that if the host opened the door to the car the contestant would automatically win the car.