Pure maths, physics, logic (braingames.ru): non-trade-related brain games - page 167
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
The bears have come. Why not? Proof?
The bear is stronger. He'll punch you in the ear, that's the proof.
It's a very old topic, and it's been around for a long time. Google it.
The bear is stronger. He'll punch you in the ear, that's the proof.
It's a very old topic, it's been around for a long time. Google it.
The bears have come. Why not? Proof?
The problem is called "Monty Hall's paradox".
After publication it immediately became clear that the problem is not correctly formulated: not all the conditions are stipulated. For example, the host can stick to the "Monty's Inferno" strategy: offer to change the choice if and only if the player has chosen the car as his first move. Obviously, changing the initial choice will lead to a guaranteed loss in such a situation.
The problem is called "Monty Hall's paradox".
After publication, it immediately became clear that the problem was formulated incorrectly: not all conditions are stipulated. For example, the presenter can stick to the "infernal Monty" strategy: offer to change the choice if and only if the player has chosen the car as his first move. Obviously, changing the initial choice will lead to a guaranteed loss in such a situation.
Matya will come and put everyone in their place.
This problem is called the "Monty Hall paradox"
The probability doesn't increase. This nonsense is from some American film.
It will. No need to blather on :) they even wrote a software program to test it. Especially the non-believers.
But the mixer thing is stupid.
It will grow. No need to blather on :) they even wrote a software program to test it. Especially non-believers.
But about the mixer is stupid.
For example, in the problem I mentioned there is nothing about the trickery of the presenter, i.e. the problem is formulated in the classic Monty Hall version.
The essence of this problem is that in fact it is two independent tasks with outcomes 1/3 and 1/2.
The result of the first choice means nothing.
But in principle, if someone wants to believe rather than think, that's their right.
Amen.
The point of this problem is that it is actually two independent problems with outcomes 1/3 and 1/2.
The result of the first choice means nothing.
But in principle, if someone wants to believe rather than think, that's their right.
Amen.
The point of this problem is that it is actually two independent problems with outcomes 1/3 and 1/2.
The result of the first choice means nothing.
But in principle, if someone wants to believe rather than think, that's their right.
Amen.
Colleague, the repeated choice of the door is subject to conditional probability, that is, the events are not independent. That is the error in your reasoning. It is your right to continue to be wrong.
The solution is given in the same Wikipedia.