On 29/11/2024 20:51, Your Name wrote:
Another example of misued surveys and statistics
This is a problem that sparked massive debate (and backlash) ...
There are three doors. Behind one is a car-a gleaming, shiny,
make-your-friends-jealous car. The other two? Goats. What
happens to the goats if you win is anyone's guess, but let's
stay focused.
Pick a door. 1, 2, or 3. Got one? Great. Let's say you picked
door 1. Now, the host opens door 3 to reveal ... a goat. Now
comes the big moment. The host gives you a choice: stick with
your original pick, or switch to door 2? What do you do?
<https://www.upworthy.com/woman-with-worlds-highest-iq>
According to Marilyn vos Savant (supposed IQ genius) back in 1990, you
should definitely swap because the statistics apparently "prove" you
chances of winning the car double.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#:~:text=There%20is%20a%202%2F3,does%20not%20change%20this%20probability.
The reality for anyone with an actual brain and common sense capable of rational thinking is that it's a no-loose decision. When you swap,
The reality is that the answer given is pure bullshit and yet another
example of fake news.
The chance of finding a car behind one of 3 doors is 1/3. The chance of
finding a goat is 2/3. Changing your mind makes no difference. Their
claim that it does is a pure downright lie since by thinking of which
door to pic you've probably already changed your mind more than once to
pick the door you are at already when the show hosts opens a door with a
goat behind it. Once you've stood behind a door and the choice is
reduced to a door with a car and a door with a goat, the chance of
getting the car is 50/50 whether or not you change your mind, not 2/3.
If their claims are true and I am wrong then I wonder if this
methodology can be used to violate the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics. Actually I can answer that. Once you've made a measurement ot observation the superposition of eigen states or so-called quantum
entanglement collapses based on the measurement you have made and where
the measuring equipment is placed, thus any prior state that might be determined by localized hidden variables (the presented knowing what is
behind all the doors) cannot be used to determine a future state as it
would violate Bell's Theorem. Making a new measurement or observation
means you are conducting a new experiment with new variables from the beginning.
Why this Monty Hall bullshit has never been debunked I have no idea. Has
anyone got proof that actual contestants that changed their minds won
the car more often than those that didn't? I don't see any in the article.
> you're either going to win the car or the other goat ... either you win
big or you've still got a goat as you originally did. Only an idiot or a
goat enthusiast wouldn't swap. It has nothing at all to do with the statistics.
If you win the goat you can always raffle it and make more money from
the raffle than the car is worth. The moment you buy a new car and have
it delivered it's value automatically drops by 50% anyway. Unless of
course it's a very limited edition sports car.
Of course, all this is completely irrelevant to making choices since
it's more likely that each "door" you can pick from has a different
"prize" rather than two of them being the same "prizes".
--
The True Doctor
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
stands for." -William Shatner
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)