5 ms·
Last time I claimed this was the correct answer, I was linked to the Monty Crawl problem. https://www.probability.ca/jeff/writing/montyfall.pdf https://www.prob
by hulium 2y ago
Last time I claimed this was the correct answer, I was linked to the Monty Crawl problem. https://www.probability.ca/jeff/writing/montyfall.pdf https://www.probability.ca/jeff/writing/montyfall.pdf
- LargeWu 2y agoThat's fine, but given the parameters of the problem change with the Monty Crawl variant, it's not the same problem, and doesn't invalidate the answer of the base variant.
- hulium 2y agoThe problem is that the parameter was unspecified in the original problem. Your answer is equivalent to the shaky answer referred to in the paper. Without knowing that the host selects between 2 goats with 50/50 chance, you cannot give a general answer.
- LargeWu 2y agoI don't follow, which parameter was unspecified in the original problem?
- hulium 2y agoMy last sentence. Or which parameter do you think was modified?
- LargeWu 2y agoThe host might be selecting between two goats, or might be selecting between a goat and a car. Either way, it doesn't matter because we don't get any additional information about whether our original choice was correct. (To clarify, this applies to the original problem, not the Crawl variant, where we either sometimes get definitive information, or sometimes get no information) Edit: Furthermore, I don't think that author's solution to the Crawl problem is correct. When the host eliminates a door, either you will get information that says you should switch, and you'll win 100% of the time; or you won't get information, and you should still always switch and win 2/3 of the time.
- hulium 2y ago> it doesn't matter because we don't get any additional information about whether our original choice was correct That's the missing assumption. I would say assuming that people are perfectly random falls into the "standardized test" category. > you won't get information, and you should still always switch and win 2/3 of the time. You always get some information, the set of possible results becomes narrower, so saying the probabilities don't change is not sufficient. Not a good idea to discuss the problem in informal language though.
- raincole 2y agoYears ago, the Monty Fall variation was mentioned on a local telnet forum I visited. The "consensus" of the thread was the solution of Monty Fall is the same as that of Monty Hall: switching gives you 2/3 chance to win. That was when I realized many people just memorize the Monty Hall's solution without understanding it, a.k.a. "standardized tests".