🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec22.185741.9823@berlioz.nsc.com>, worden@bouncer.nsc.com (Dennis Worden) writes:
>The fact that you now have an open door with a goat behind it does not
>change the fact that you have 2 door and 1 prize.

That's true.  However, the fact that there are two doors and one prize doesn't
mean there's a 50% chance of either door holding the prize.  Your argument
can be extended as follows:
	Tomorrow morning, either the sun will rise, or it won't.

	There are two possible outcomes.

	Therefore, there's a 50% chance the sun won't rise tomorrow.

>The opening of the
>third door only tells you that the prize is not behind that door, it does
>not add any information as to where the prize really is.  Or put it another
>way, if you consider this new information on the same puzzle, why do you
>freeze the probability of the original guess at 33%?  To freeze the original
>probabilities at their "pre-new-information" levels means that your are not
>using that new information.  The new information would apply equally to all
>doors that are left,

No, it doesn't.  Because if the other unopened door held a goat, Monty COULD'VE
opened it.  But whether the door you originally picked holds a goat or not,
Monty CANNOT open that one.  You're trying to treat an asymmetric situation as
if it's symmetric.  The fact that you chose a door before Monty opened one
destroyed the symmetry that's fundamental to your argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.