[Archive!] Pure mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc.: brain-training problems not related to trade in any way - page 393

New comment
 
If you don't believe me, check with a friend. You'll be quite surprised :))) (I tried it when I was a kid)
 
alsu:

no. Choosing one box that you definitely can't open is like choosing two boxes that you can open.

And if you choose one box to open (we can only open one ourselves), then the presenter will still open an empty one.

logic.

The prize in one of the three - one empty one will be opened by the presenter - the second one will be opened by the participant - two will be opened.

Participant chooses from two closed ones - one is 50/50

 
It seems to me ( calmly, I haven't been drinking) we are actually choosing one box out of two from the start, i.e. 50/50
 
Mischek:
It seems to me ( calmly, I haven't been drinking) we are actually choosing one box out of two from the start, i.e. 50/50
Are our choices limited to two cases from the start?
 

Let's assume that the doors closed at the beginning are a hundred, not three.

it turns out that we have as much as 1 % at the beginning, but immediately after the first choice, 98 empty doors will open, and as it was actually a choice between two, so it remains

so it is 50/50

 

Let's assume that the doors closed at the beginning are a hundred, not three.

it turns out that we have as much as 1 % at the beginning, but immediately after the first choice, 98 empty doors will open, and as it was actually a choice between two, so it remains

so it is 50/50

 
Mischek:

Let's assume that the doors closed at the beginning are a hundred, not three.

it turns out that we have as much as 1 % at the beginning, but immediately after the first choice, 98 empty doors will open, and as it was actually a choice between two, so it remains

so it is 50/50

after the first choice - this means that the experience with the drawer doors has already been made. Everything else is intuitive lyricism. By choosing one of the three doors, we have definitely set up an experience whose probability of a happy outcome is kind of obvious. The presenter's intervention changes the conditional probabilities for the remaining doors. That's all.
 
Tantrik:

The prize in one of the three - one empty will be opened by the presenter - the second will be opened by the contestant - two will be opened.

The contestant chooses one of the two closed - 50/50

No. The contestant chooses a strategy first. This (the fact that it's chosen) means that during the game we have no right to refuse it.


Let me explain it to you.

We have decided that we will always change our choice.

You have pointed the presenter to box A. He has to choose from the two remaining boxes B and C. There are the following equally probable (!) options:

1. the prize is actually in box A. The presenter can open any box, we lose.

2. the prize is actually in box B. the presenter points to an empty box C according to the game conditions. we open B and win.

3. The prize is actually in box C. The facilitator will point to an empty box B. We open C and win.


Reverse case: we have decided that we do not change the choice under any circumstances.

1. the prize is actually in box A. The host can open any box, we open A and win.

2. the prize is actually in box B. the presenter will point to an empty box C according to the conditions of the game. we open A and lose.

3. The prize is actually in box C. The presenter will point to an empty box B. We open A and lose.


Does that make any sense now?

 
alsu:

No. The participant chooses a strategy first. This (the fact that it was chosen) means that during the game we are not allowed to give it up.


Let me explain it to you.

We have decided that we will always change our choice.

You have pointed the presenter to box A. He has to choose from the two remaining boxes B and C. There are the following equally likely (!) options:

1. the prize is actually in box A. The presenter can open any box, we lose.

2. the prize is actually in box B. the facilitator points to an empty box C according to the game conditions. we open B and win.

3. The prize is actually in box C. The facilitator will point to an empty box B. We open C and win.


Reverse case: we have decided that we do not change the choice under any circumstances.

1. the prize is actually in box A. The host can open any box, we open A and win.

2. the prize is actually in box B. the presenter will point to an empty box C according to the conditions of the game. we open A and lose.

3. The prize is actually in box C. The presenter will point to an empty box B. We open A and lose.


Does that make any sense now?


The prize does not have to change the boxes in order every time. As it was 50/50, so it remains. The competition (or quiz) field of wonders is won by one participant and maybe once in a lifetime. For once you have to rely on intuition - strategy: choose box A. stand near box B. the presenter opens C. go to A. the second option the presenter opens A. stay near B.
 

Man, I can't take it anymore.

Who gets it, gets it. The rest of us pick up the boxes and go to put the experience to the test.

1...386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400...628
New comment