|
|
Post by paulschlimm on Jun 18, 2009 13:20:59 GMT -5
If I could co-opt Omaha to my team, I'd let him waterboard Tramp AND give him one of the goats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Jun 18, 2009 13:22:50 GMT -5
I'll settle for public humiliation on an internet forum. Get your wish yet?  |
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Jun 18, 2009 13:28:07 GMT -5
If I could co-opt Omaha to my team, I'd let him waterboard Tramp AND give him one of the goats. "Pay no attention to the goat, Lieutenant Colonel Paul, for she is a liar and a whore." |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 18, 2009 13:43:23 GMT -5
I'll settle for public humiliation on an internet forum. Get your wish yet? Yep. I've never had a problem with being proven wrong. Now explain the math. I'm guessing that since I've mucked up the independence or something, I should be dividing 33% by 50% to give me 67% but I can't get there. What am I missing? |
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 18, 2009 13:55:56 GMT -5
'The folks who have the right answer (switching is better) can't frame the other side of the debate." Yeah. I don't understand the incorrect argument at all. I think it's easy to see the other side. That's where I started from. I initially thought it was a 50/50 proposition. But when I saw the diagram on Wikipedia (that I linked to about 200 pages ago), the truth of the 1/3 vs. 2/3 was obvious. What I don't get are the people who still don't see that it's a 1/3 or 2/3 choice. Or, for that matter, anyone who doesn't understand how someone could mistake this for a 50/50 choice. We (both sides) have, afterall, explained it everywhich way over the last 12 pages. |
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Jun 18, 2009 13:57:19 GMT -5
the math is based on the initial selection inverted. the removal of one door and being able to switch to the opposite of your original selection gives you the chance to change probabilities from what you initially selected to the inverse of what you selected. That is the key. the choice to switch will always result in you getting whatever you didn't select the first time. this inverts your origina' odds. the odds for a car go from 33% to 66% and the odds for the notcar go from 66% to 33%. it is all based on the odds of your original selection. At no point does 50% ever enter the equation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Jun 18, 2009 14:02:30 GMT -5
Let me rephrase that by saying "I don't understand the incorrect argument at all...anymore." I used to think it was 50% too. Heck, there are now two doors and I have one of them. One of those doors holds a car so I must have a 50% chance of having a car! Switching to the other door won't change my odds at all since it is now one in two. I get it. That's why my first post regarding this included the phrase "completely counterintuitive". Problem is it is the more you dig the more you find out that the 50% idea is a complete invention. It is never 50%. In the overall it is always either 33% or 66% and that just screws with brains all day long. This is why Parade magazine got thousands of letters from very smart people claiming that the IQ lady got it wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by knobtwister on Jun 18, 2009 14:13:36 GMT -5
Dead Horse to clean up on aisle 3.
Don
|
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 18, 2009 14:16:26 GMT -5
Dead horse? On page 12? Have you ever seen the Neil Young thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by knobtwister on Jun 18, 2009 14:20:31 GMT -5
Why would I look at that.  |
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Jun 18, 2009 14:28:28 GMT -5
Is there also a dead horse on aisle 1? If so can I switch to aisle 2?
|
|
|
|
Post by loopysanchez on Jun 18, 2009 15:52:16 GMT -5
Dead horse? On page 12? Have you ever seen the Neil Young thread? That would be a Dead Crazy Horse. |
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 18, 2009 17:01:18 GMT -5
 Apparently he's not dead. But I think he may be turning into Gandalf. |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 18, 2009 17:09:03 GMT -5
< gollum >
|
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 18, 2009 17:11:15 GMT -5
Right you are. Sorry... By Gollum, I think he's turning into Gandalf. |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 18, 2009 17:12:57 GMT -5
Much better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 18, 2009 17:23:24 GMT -5
Thanks. I never knew this before (and thank GOD for the incredibly informative 56 page thread), but it looks like he got his start as Randy Travis.  |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 18, 2009 17:25:49 GMT -5
Thanks. I never knew this before (and thank GOD for the incredibly informative 56 page thread), but it looks like he got his start as Randy Travis. ...before morphing seamlessly into the Geiko Caveman...  |
|
