rosborne979 wrote:I found the thought process here interesting...
First, a question is asked (no fault there, lots of people don't understand things and ask questions).
But then the theory itself is challenged:
Foxfyre wrote:So gut level, Joe, do you think the on line game was rigged to demonstrate "proof" for the theory of probability here? Or is the theory of probability the real deal?
Followed quickly by suggesting "design" in the results:
Foxfyre wrote:Coincidence? Fluke? Or by design?
It just reminded me of the same thought process ID'ers use when trying to understand evolution.
Yes it is too bad that everybody isn't as absolutely (and arrogantly) convinced of his own brilliance as you are Ros. I think I still prefer to have an open mind and be able to consider more possibilities than what seems obvious to the close minded even if I get it wrong sometimes.
Foxfyre wrote:Yes it is too bad that everybody isn't as absolutely (and arrogantly) convinced of his own brilliance as you are Ros. I think I still prefer to have an open mind and be able to consider more possibilities than what seems obvious to the close minded even if I get it wrong sometimes.
Just because some people already understand certain things doesn't mean they are arrogant or close-minded. You're pretty quick to throw stones after asking a question, and then challenging/ignoring the very people who try to help.
rosborne979 wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Yes it is too bad that everybody isn't as absolutely (and arrogantly) convinced of his own brilliance as you are Ros. I think I still prefer to have an open mind and be able to consider more possibilities than what seems obvious to the close minded even if I get it wrong sometimes.
Just because some people already understand certain things doesn't mean they are arrogant or close-minded. You're pretty quick to throw stones after asking a question, and then challenging/ignoring the very people who try to help.
Whatever Ros. I didn't think I did that. Very nice of you to show up to correct me however.
Foxfyre
Ros is right, he's not being arrogant.
But, you are not being open minded, rather increasingly stubborn.
Open minded is when you are willing to listen to others, take what they have to say, and in your case, take the bits and pieces that are understandable to you for this situation, and consider them in an attempt to make sense of the problem.
I don't even know at this point how many people have tried to explain it, in a myriad of ways. However, you simply keep returning to your original "but there's only 2 doors to pick from"
I'd like to think that it's a simply a matter of someone coming along and saying something that turns the key and makes it click for you. Believe me, I understand your frustration. I barely passed high school first year algebra, as I felt a forgein language was being spoken. It wasn't until about 7 years later that one person said one thing that made the whole thing click. However, I'll admit I was looking for that click.
One thing I have is common sense math understanding, and to me, both my gut and my logic are both saying you should switch to get the 2/3's chance of winning.
Chai wrote:Foxfyre
Ros is right, he's not being arrogant.
But, you are not being open minded, rather increasingly stubborn.
Open minded is when you are willing to listen to others, take what they have to say, and in your case, take the bits and pieces that are understandable to you for this situation, and consider them in an attempt to make sense of the problem.
I don't even know at this point how many people have tried to explain it, in a myriad of ways. However, you simply keep returning to your original "but there's only 2 doors to pick from"
I'd like to think that it's a simply a matter of someone coming along and saying something that turns the key and makes it click for you. Believe me, I understand your frustration. I barely passed high school first year algebra, as I felt a forgein language was being spoken. It wasn't until about 7 years later that one person said one thing that made the whole thing click. However, I'll admit I was looking for that click.
One thing I have is common sense math understanding, and to me, both my gut and my logic are both saying you should switch to get the 2/3's chance of winning.
Thank you Chai. I suppose that's why in a previous post I agreed with that. But of course that isn't important and mercy, it is so WRONG to try to have fun with anything like this. But oh well.
Ya'll all have a nice day now.
Don't you libruls know nothing?
When someone gets the answer wrong you are supposed to be kind and supportive and pretend they got it right. Because that's just what libruls are supposed to do. Fox News said we do it all the time.
It's OK Fox. We'll just pass you on to the next grade even if you haven't lurned nothing. Here's a
Now you just feel good about yourself, Fox and don't let those meanies tell you that your stupad or nothing like that.
Foxy-
Not only have they not noticed you conceding but they have also not noticed my having done so.
And they have made no comment on my use of the game to highlight the irreducible complexity of the economic system which the great and the good are now wrestling with.
I would speculate that Jesus overturned the money tables because he saw it coming through an intellectual extrapolation of the simple principles he was observing allied to the vice of pride.
They are just too eager to preen. Imagine them at close quarters. Trivial, witless, humourless, po-faced egofreaks.
I enjoyed your thread and learned something useful from it. Thanks.
"Now he worships at an altar
Of a stagnant pool
And when he sees his reflection
He's fulfilled."
Bob Dylan.
spendius wrote:Foxy-
Not only have they not noticed you conceding but they have also not noticed my having done so.
And they have made no comment on my use of the game to highlight the irreducible complexity of the economic system which the great and the good are now wrestling with.
I would speculate that Jesus overturned the money tables because he saw it coming through an intellectual extrapolation of the simple principles he was observing allied to the vice of pride.
They are just too eager to preen. Imagine them at close quarters. Trivial, witless, humourless, po-faced egofreaks.
I enjoyed your thread and learned something useful from it. Thanks.
Thank you Spendi. It has worried me a bit that I usually am able to get your point when others can't seem to, and it has worried me more that more often than not, I agree with it.
But oh well. (They probably won't be able to have any fun with that either.)
Foxfyre wrote:Well Spendi agrees and RipRap puts out the math theorum that, while I gut level believe is probably spot on accurate, makes me blink and wish I could understand. I still cannot understand why switching from your initial choice is likely to produce a better result than staying with it once the equation is reduced to two choices.
Because your gut feels that this is still a randomly generated problem, but it's not. The two remaining doors are not randomly distributed since Monty knows something about the doors and has interferred with the distribution. If Monty randomly picked a door so that both your pick and his were random and you got to the final stage, the probability would be 50/50, but 1/3 of the time, you wouldn't get there since Monty would pick the car and you would lose. Since Monty is skewing the odds, you have to go back to the last time the odds were correct - your initial pick. You had a 1/3 chance of being right and a 2/3 chance of being wrong. After Monty's move,
that is still true! That's why you switch.
We've got it engineer. Have you not read the thread?
g__day cleared the way.
What did you think of my suggestion that the game gives a way into a clearer understanding of global financial transactions?
spendius wrote:We've got it engineer. Have you not read the thread?
I did and I'm sorry I didn't get here earlier, but I didn't get the impression that Foxfyre was on board with the answer.
Honestly? I didn't either engineer. There just came a point where there were too many words :wink: and I couldn't tell a change had occured.
As far as spendius, I never know what he's saying, and I've burned up quite a few brain cells, and can't spare any more.
But, since we're all on board now, let's show everyone what they could have won.....
Johnny, tell the nice people.....
It's a naked goat-flying circus!
Well, Chai, in the time it took to read through this thread, you could have had three actual human interactions, or one meal. As a consolation prize, all readers will take home a headache and a greater understanding of what an IQ of 100 really is.
spendius wrote:We've got it engineer. Have you not read the thread?
g__day cleared the way.
g__day's explanation was the same explanation rosborne979 posted a few pages earlier. I assume you read the thread given your question so I wonder why you didn't understand it the first time? You didn't understand a bunch of clear explanations, how are they supposed to know when you finally do if you try to save face and play it off?
Of course people missed you when you "conceded" being wrong. If you continue to fire potshots at those who were right all the time and try to save face it's not a very conciliatory concession.
Quote:
What did you think of my suggestion that the game gives a way into a clearer understanding of global financial transactions?
It was a lot like foxfyre's comparison in validity and intent.
R-G writes
Quote:It was a lot like foxfyre's comparison in validity and intent.
Well I don't know how you could come to that conclusion since you seem to have completely missed my intent.
We'll have to agree to disagree there. I suspect I understand it better than you are able to admit.
Robert Gentel wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree there. I suspect I understand it better than you are able to admit.
I'll agree to disagree but no, you don't.
