Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Okay I am finished thinking about it, thanks for the link to the wikipedia page. I think I understand the argument now.
And I am afraid
This is IMO as obviously wrong as I initially thought, because it is just a word game to suggest false probabilities.
The wikipedia page you linked to shows a table which illustrates how switching the door would be the more successful strategy.
There "Switching" covers two different successful scenarios, while staying with ones door covers only one. That is correct, but not representative of the actual possibilities in a single case, because in an actual case you have not the option to switch in two different ways, but only one switching option just as only one staying option.
And how it could happen that the table is not actually showing probabilities is easy to explain: Because after one door is eliminated, there are only two options left! Not three.
This is just silly nonsense, albeit I guess cleverly worded.
edit: apparently academia disagree with me
But screw me I think I am right.
And I am afraid
I am one of them.A lot of people will argue about it, though, till they're blue in the face.
This is IMO as obviously wrong as I initially thought, because it is just a word game to suggest false probabilities.
The wikipedia page you linked to shows a table which illustrates how switching the door would be the more successful strategy.
There "Switching" covers two different successful scenarios, while staying with ones door covers only one. That is correct, but not representative of the actual possibilities in a single case, because in an actual case you have not the option to switch in two different ways, but only one switching option just as only one staying option.
And how it could happen that the table is not actually showing probabilities is easy to explain: Because after one door is eliminated, there are only two options left! Not three.
This is just silly nonsense, albeit I guess cleverly worded.
edit: apparently academia disagree with me
