4 ms·
The 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 knowi
by hulium 2y ago
The 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.