5 ms·

No. In person I can see what the other party is thinking. The two are independent variables, man. I don't know how to explain it any more clearly than that. Wh

No. In person I can see what the other party is thinking. The two are independent variables, man. I don't know how to explain it any more clearly than that. What's tripping people up is the idea that removing GG from the possibilities doesn't affect the local probability of either particular child being girl. It does. You must reformulate. THAT's the counterintuitive part. It's just hella hard to explain, because there are too many 2's and 1/2's floating around the problem, so when you say one cancels another, people think you're not incorporating the first to begin with, so you must be one of the dolts the author is trying to learn some knowledge. The following, you can take or leave: probability is my thing. I got Monty Hall right when I was in 6th grade. I was an AIME invitee, if you know what that is. I got 800 on the math SAT; 36 on the math ACT in freshman year. None of these things mean anything, logically speaking, I know. I say them only to encourage you (and only you, because you're putting in effort) to consider what I'm saying as fully as you're considering what the crowd is saying.

ColinWright 13y ago
> No. In person I can see what the other party is thinking. So when you have less knowledge about the other person you are more rude. I feel that's logically inconsistent. > The two are independent variables, man. I don't know > how to explain it any more clearly than that. "The two" ?? What "two"? Your "explanations" are very unclear. > What's tripping people up is the idea that removing GG > from the possibilities doesn't affect the local probability > of either particular child being girl. It does. You must > reformulate. Again, it's clear that you are talking about a different problem. Yes, the problem you are talking about has an answer of 1/2. No, it's not the problem we're talking about. > It's just hella hard to explain, ... You will find many things difficult if you don't learn how to slow down, take time, be precise, and explain clearly. Be more like Feynman - take time to explain things clearly and precisely. > ... you must be one of the dolts ... Ah. > The following, you can take or leave: probability is my > thing. I got Monty Hall right when I was in 6th grade. > I was an AIME invitee, if you know what that is. I got > 800 on the math SAT; 36 on the math ACT in freshman year. Good for you. I speak for and contribute to the training of IOM teams, I've been an invited speaker at the Museum of Mathematics in New York, the Dutch National Mathematics days, Matematikbiennalen in Sweden, and more math masterclasses than I can count. This year I'm speaking in London, Switzerland, Belgium, and giving around 150 talks, masterclasses, and workshops. I have a Bachelors, Masters, and PhD. > None of these things mean anything, logically speaking, Right. > I know. I say them only to encourage you (and only you, > because you're putting in effort) to consider what I'm > saying as fully as you're considering what the crowd is > saying. Hmm. Well, thanks for the encouragement. I was only saying these things to point out that I have considered these things, and have some form in the area. I forgot to mention that I was at the G4G when the Tuesday Boy problem was first mentioned, and spent much of the evening with Tanya Khovanova, Gary Foshee, John Conway, Richard Guy, and others, talking about the various interpretations. I didn't talk about it with Martin Gardner when I spent an afternoon with him, we were talking about my work. I mention these things only to point out that you might consider that you are wrong. So, do you answer 1/3 for each of A, B, and C?
- gametheoretic 13y ago
  Well don't I feel like an idiot for saying any of that. Why were you running a "computer simulation" of the problem? Were you, even? >"The two" ?? What "two"? Your "explanations" are very unclear. The only two there are: the two children. The sex of one is independent from the sex of the other. >You will find many things difficult if you don't learn how to slow down, take time, be precise, and explain clearly. Be more like Feynman - take time to explain things clearly and precisely. Okay, I'll try, good buddy. Monty Hall is different because it precludes upfront the possibility of there being any ratio other than 1:2. If we were, however, to say that any door could have either a goat or a car, then Monty's elimination of some other door would not inform you on the odds of your door YOUR door. Yea or nay? The only way for Monty to give you any information at all about whether to switch is if the rule binds him to tell you something about the odds of the unchosen doors. In the original problem, this happens, because the ratio is bound 1:2. In our revised problem, this does not happen - unless he tells you he can't remove a door because neither is a goat. But! Using this as an analogue to our children problem, we've already precluded that possibility upfront by eliminating GG, thus Monty can't provide us any information because his B-G choice is unbound by any rule.
  - ColinWright 13y ago
    > Why were you running a "computer simulation" of the > problem? Were you, even? I was reconstructing what happened when Erdős was first told of the Monty Hall problem. He answered 1/2, and was very frustrated for a time. In the end he said something like "But you're not telling me the why!" Moving on ... >> "The two" ?? What "two"? Your "explanations" are >> very unclear. > The only two there are: the two children. The sex > of one is independent from the sex of the other. So we are assuming that this chap has exactly two children, and that their sexes are independent with probability 1/2. > Monty Hall is different because it precludes upfront > the possibility of there being any ratio other than > 1:2. If we were, however, to say that any door could > have either a goat or a car, then it wouldn't matter > whether you stayed or switched. Monty's elimination > of some other door would not inform you on the odds > of your door YOUR door. Yea or nay? Yes, agreed. > The only way for Monty to give you any information at > all about whether to switch is if the rule binds him > to tell you something about the odds of the unchosen > doors. Yes. > In the original problem, this happens, because the > ratio is bound 1:2. OK. > In our revised problem, this does not happen - unless > he tells you he can't remove a door because neither > is a goat. Yes. > Using this as an analogue to our children problem, > we've already precluded that possibility upfront > by eliminating GG, thus Monty can't provide us any > information because his B-G choice is unbound by > any rule. I fail to see how that is in any way relevant. There are four equally likely possibilities for the children. If we label them older first then we have BB, BG, GB, GG. Only by labelling them in some consistent order to we get equally likely possibilities. The father says that at least one child is a boy. That eliminates the option of GG. Are you somehow suggesting that the probability distribution of the other options is changed by this? If so, how? Just as Monty's choice gives no information about the door we have selected (and which therefore remains as chance 1/3 of being the winning door), telling us that it's not the case that both children are girls gives us no further information about the other three equally likely possibilities. So in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7022615 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7022615 I asked you this ... A: So now let's take another experiment. I tell you I'm going to flip two coins until at least one of them is heads. I do that. Now I ask you to bet on whether or not there is a tail. What do you think are fair odds? B: ... C: ... There are three options. 1: Your answers to A, B, and C are not all the same; 2: They are all the same, and not 1/3; 3: They are all the same, and all 1/3. In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7022707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7022707 you answered: > The answer to all 3 is 1/2. That turns out not to be the case. The answer to A is 1/3. Write a computer program to simulate it and then post it here. Seriously, don't just theorize about it, try it.

ColinWright 13y ago

> No. In person I can see what the other party is thinking. So when you have less knowledge about the other person you are more rude. I feel that's logically inconsistent. > The two are independent variables, man. I don't know > how to explain it any more clearly than that. "The two" ?? What "two"? Your "explanations" are very unclear. > What's tripping people up is the idea that removing GG > from the possibilities doesn't affect the local probability > of either particular child being girl. It does. You must > reformulate. Again, it's clear that you are talking about a different problem. Yes, the problem you are talking about has an answer of 1/2. No, it's not the problem we're talking about. > It's just hella hard to explain, ... You will find many things difficult if you don't learn how to slow down, take time, be precise, and explain clearly. Be more like Feynman - take time to explain things clearly and precisely. > ... you must be one of the dolts ... Ah. > The following, you can take or leave: probability is my > thing. I got Monty Hall right when I was in 6th grade. > I was an AIME invitee, if you know what that is. I got > 800 on the math SAT; 36 on the math ACT in freshman year. Good for you. I speak for and contribute to the training of IOM teams, I've been an invited speaker at the Museum of Mathematics in New York, the Dutch National Mathematics days, Matematikbiennalen in Sweden, and more math masterclasses than I can count. This year I'm speaking in London, Switzerland, Belgium, and giving around 150 talks, masterclasses, and workshops. I have a Bachelors, Masters, and PhD. > None of these things mean anything, logically speaking, Right. > I know. I say them only to encourage you (and only you, > because you're putting in effort) to consider what I'm > saying as fully as you're considering what the crowd is > saying. Hmm. Well, thanks for the encouragement. I was only saying these things to point out that I have considered these things, and have some form in the area. I forgot to mention that I was at the G4G when the Tuesday Boy problem was first mentioned, and spent much of the evening with Tanya Khovanova, Gary Foshee, John Conway, Richard Guy, and others, talking about the various interpretations. I didn't talk about it with Martin Gardner when I spent an afternoon with him, we were talking about my work. I mention these things only to point out that you might consider that you are wrong. So, do you answer 1/3 for each of A, B, and C?

gametheoretic 13y ago
Well don't I feel like an idiot for saying any of that. Why were you running a "computer simulation" of the problem? Were you, even? >"The two" ?? What "two"? Your "explanations" are very unclear. The only two there are: the two children. The sex of one is independent from the sex of the other. >You will find many things difficult if you don't learn how to slow down, take time, be precise, and explain clearly. Be more like Feynman - take time to explain things clearly and precisely. Okay, I'll try, good buddy. Monty Hall is different because it precludes upfront the possibility of there being any ratio other than 1:2. If we were, however, to say that any door could have either a goat or a car, then Monty's elimination of some other door would not inform you on the odds of your door YOUR door. Yea or nay? The only way for Monty to give you any information at all about whether to switch is if the rule binds him to tell you something about the odds of the unchosen doors. In the original problem, this happens, because the ratio is bound 1:2. In our revised problem, this does not happen - unless he tells you he can't remove a door because neither is a goat. But! Using this as an analogue to our children problem, we've already precluded that possibility upfront by eliminating GG, thus Monty can't provide us any information because his B-G choice is unbound by any rule.
- ColinWright 13y ago
  > Why were you running a "computer simulation" of the > problem? Were you, even? I was reconstructing what happened when Erdős was first told of the Monty Hall problem. He answered 1/2, and was very frustrated for a time. In the end he said something like "But you're not telling me the why!" Moving on ... >> "The two" ?? What "two"? Your "explanations" are >> very unclear. > The only two there are: the two children. The sex > of one is independent from the sex of the other. So we are assuming that this chap has exactly two children, and that their sexes are independent with probability 1/2. > Monty Hall is different because it precludes upfront > the possibility of there being any ratio other than > 1:2. If we were, however, to say that any door could > have either a goat or a car, then it wouldn't matter > whether you stayed or switched. Monty's elimination > of some other door would not inform you on the odds > of your door YOUR door. Yea or nay? Yes, agreed. > The only way for Monty to give you any information at > all about whether to switch is if the rule binds him > to tell you something about the odds of the unchosen > doors. Yes. > In the original problem, this happens, because the > ratio is bound 1:2. OK. > In our revised problem, this does not happen - unless > he tells you he can't remove a door because neither > is a goat. Yes. > Using this as an analogue to our children problem, > we've already precluded that possibility upfront > by eliminating GG, thus Monty can't provide us any > information because his B-G choice is unbound by > any rule. I fail to see how that is in any way relevant. There are four equally likely possibilities for the children. If we label them older first then we have BB, BG, GB, GG. Only by labelling them in some consistent order to we get equally likely possibilities. The father says that at least one child is a boy. That eliminates the option of GG. Are you somehow suggesting that the probability distribution of the other options is changed by this? If so, how? Just as Monty's choice gives no information about the door we have selected (and which therefore remains as chance 1/3 of being the winning door), telling us that it's not the case that both children are girls gives us no further information about the other three equally likely possibilities. So in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7022615 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7022615 I asked you this ... A: So now let's take another experiment. I tell you I'm going to flip two coins until at least one of them is heads. I do that. Now I ask you to bet on whether or not there is a tail. What do you think are fair odds? B: ... C: ... There are three options. 1: Your answers to A, B, and C are not all the same; 2: They are all the same, and not 1/3; 3: They are all the same, and all 1/3. In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7022707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7022707 you answered: > The answer to all 3 is 1/2. That turns out not to be the case. The answer to A is 1/3. Write a computer program to simulate it and then post it here. Seriously, don't just theorize about it, try it.