3 ms·
> opens another door, say #3, which has a goat There is no randomness in this sentence. The door has a goat, not a car. Then again, you might read it as an ex
by hulium 3y ago
> opens another door, say #3, which has a goat
There is no randomness in this sentence. The door has a goat, not a car.
Then again, you might read it as an example outcome. But even if the door was chosen randomly, it would not justify the 50%/50% answer.
Independently of that, assuming that the host chooses the door with the car and the goat with 50% probability each is the same mistake that confused so many, you cannot always assume uniform probability only because there are 2 options.
(I wanted to point out the flaws in your thinking because this has also been a confusing problem for me)
- dekhn 3y agoI think you are correct about my thinking: at the time, I assumed it was an example outcome and my brain turned off at that point and simply assumed the probs were still 50-50. In some sense I was both intellectually wrong (in my assumption about it being an example) and intellectually lazy (in my failure to work through the implications of my assumption). Personally the whole thing taught me is one true hallmark of intelligence is the ability to eliminate unnecessary ambiguity and find the "right" answer.
- digitalscribe 3y agoThis was an interesting discussion when I read about it long ago. I don't think it's obvious that Marilyn's interpretation is the correct one. Two possible interpretations could be equally valid. In law we have the "rule of the last antecedent" that says descriptive clauses modify the nearest antecedent noun. Under this interpretation "which has a goat" modifies the exemplary door "say #3". Same as saying host opens a door, for example door #3 containing a goat. It could have been say door #2 containing a car. Marilyn's interpretation is that "which has a goat" modifies "host opens another door." Same as saying the door opened by the host always has a goat. Language is inherently ambiguous. I don't think either interpretation is unreasonable...