🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Dec21.214559.22343@berlioz.nsc.com> worden@bouncer.nsc.com (Dennis Worden) writes:



>Now reword the situation a little:
>After Monty opens the door with the goat behind it, he then asks you to
>choose between the remaining two doors, one with the prize, and the other
>with the goat.  You have a 50% chance of picking the correct one (remember,
>the third door does not exist in the wording).  You have a 50% chance
>of picking the correct door here.  You have the same information as before,
>the only change is that instead of asking you to "switch", you are asked
>to "pick from start".  Either way, you have two doors in front of you,
>and one prize.  

WRONG.

I could easily separate you from your money if you think that there is no
new information added.  The fallacy in your reasoning is quite intuitive
and understandable.  It is not, however, based on logical reasoning.

Just because there are two door in front of you, one with the prize, it
does not imply 50/50 probability.


>The fallacy here is assigning the 33% chance from the door Monty opened
>totally to the last door.  The 33% distributes across both door, afterall,
>just because you now know the prize isn't behind one of the doors, doesn't
>tell you where it is.  That 33% chance splits evenly between the remaining
>two doors, and you have 50%.  To believe otherwise is the same as saying
>you approach three doors, one of which is open and has a goat, two of
>which are closed.  Whichever door you pick only has a 33% chance of being
>right, the other door has a 67% chance of being correct.  Now that doesn't
>make any sense does it?

You are making a fool of yourself.
This is a well known problem.

-- 
    / \      Reverend fnord                 | "King Kong died for your sins!"
   /   \     fnord@panix.com                | 
  / <0> \                                   | "Don't just eat a hamburger, 
 /_______\   Church of Obfuscatology, Inc.  |  eat the HELL out of it!"