🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec18.202554.29968@cs.odu.edu>, carr@fog.cs.odu.edu (Eric Carr) writes:
>...But suppose there were, for every time the door was opened, TWO players
>each standing in front of one of the doors. (The third player having already
>been disappointed by being told he/she was the proud owner of a goat.)
>Wouldn't BOTH of these players supposedly statistically benefit from switching,
>if the 2/3 answer were correct?

No.  The point is that Monty has to open a door that:
	1)  Wasn't chosen; and
	2)  Had no prize behind it.
Your scenario doesn't allow this.  In particular, even if you have only two
people, there's a 1/3 chance that the door neither picked has the prize, so
Monty doesn't have a door that he's allowed to open.

>	The logic seemed OK to me until I thought of this aspect... Now I'm
>truly confused! 8-) I'd appreciate it if someone could explain this facet of
>the problem. I don't really care if I'm right or wrong -- I'd just like to know.

By adding a second contestant, you've changed the scenario.  If Monty is
allowed to open a door, then each contestant has a 50% chance of winning.  If
Monty is NOT allowed to open a door (because both contestants have picked
losers) both contestants have a 100% chance of winning by picking the door
Monty's not allowed to opoen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.