EPTWho is the smartest poster at TL.net? - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
softwarepirate
United States153 Posts
| ||
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On May 04 2005 18:46 MoltkeWarding wrote: Er...if you're talking about the probability of A being pardoned after its revealed C is not being pardoned, the probability of A being pardoned is now 1/2. Addendum #5: Martin Gardner's version, published in October 1959, involved three condemned prisoners, one of whom will be pardoned at random. One prisoner cons the warden into naming one of the other prisoners (other than the prisoner who is asking this of the warden) who will not be pardoned. Do this prisoner's (the one talking to the warden) chances of being pardoned then go up to 50%? This is identical to the Monty Hall trap, and this prisoner's chances are still 1/3, but the probability that the third prisoner will be pardoned have gone up to 2/3. Mr. Gardner got a flood of mail about this, much smaller than Ms. Savant's flood of mail. Marilyn Vos Savant's column was published in Parade magazine, on September 9, 1990. Subsequent readers' comment appeared on Dec. 2, 1990, Feb. 17, 1991, Jul. 7, 1991, Sep. 8, 1991, Oct. 13, 1991, Jan. 5, 1992, and Jan. 26, 1992. Also see The New York Times of July 21, 1991 (front page) and August 11, 1991 about the furor. Several articles in mathematical journals were also devoted to this. As per the bottom of http://www.jimloy.com/puzz/monty.htm Maybe I should have said that the person to be pardoned was chosen before C was revealed as one that will not be pardoned? | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On May 04 2005 18:51 softwarepirate wrote: im not extremely smart... but im arragant as all get up ^_^ If you're dumb, then why are you arrogant? Let smart people be proud and let stupid people be meek and all would be right with the world. | ||
|
ihatett
United States2289 Posts
Martin Gardner's version, published in October 1959, involved three condemned prisoners, one of whom will be pardoned at random. One prisoner cons the warden into naming one of the other prisoners (other than the prisoner who is asking this of the warden) who will not be pardoned. Do this prisoner's (the one talking to the warden) chances of being pardoned then go up to 50%? This is identical to the Monty Hall trap, and this prisoner's chances are still 1/3, but the probability that the third prisoner will be pardoned have gone up to 2/3. Mr. Gardner got a flood of mail about this, much smaller than Ms. Savant's flood of mail. Here is how I would explain it: I'll assume that you are the prisoner. You know from the start that you have a 1/3 chance of being pardoned. On the same line, you also know that there is a 1/3 chance that neither of them will be pardoned. When one of them is eliminated, you know that the remaining guy has a 1/3 chance that he will not pardoned (because of what we just said), so the other 2/3 of the time he will be. | ||
|
softwarepirate
United States153 Posts
On May 04 2005 18:53 MoltkeWarding wrote: If you're dumb, then why are you arrogant? Let smart people be proud and let stupid people be meek and all would be right with the world. Well I didn't say I was dumb. I know a bit about lots of stuff. Every1 has their field which they are really smart in...I was just admiting im definetely not the smartest person here... tho im damn smart in history ^_^ | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On May 04 2005 18:50 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Why would C's perspective be different? Nobody was telling C anything, only A. The only perspective that would matter is A because he was the one who was talking to the warden. The other perspectives are non-existant. Oops typo, change my question to if the odds would change if you were looking from B's perspective, not C. I guess you could still argue that B's perspective is also non-existent from the viewpoint of the hypo, but I'm still curious as to whether the odds would change according to perspective and knowledge. Would it be different if the warden told both A and B that C wasn't being pardoned or if B was the one asking instead of A? It just seems to be a matter of who was asking that determines the probabilities, and I'm curious if that's the case. | ||
|
camooT
United States1354 Posts
[QUOTE]On May 04 2005 18:41 XaI)CyRiC wrote: I'm probably going to reveal my lack of intelligence here, but I am curious about the Addendum #5 in the link given for this probability problem. I've been convinced as to the actual Monty Hall problem with the three doors already btw, this [URL=http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Monty_Hall/Monty_Hall.html]picture[/URL] helped. For anyone who is too lazy to look up the link, the scenario is basically three prisoners on deathrow, one of whom will be pardoned at random. Then, one of the prisoners (A) convinces the warden to reveal one of the prisoners who will not be pardoned (C). According to the addendum, the probability of A being the one pardoned is still 1/3, while the other prisoner (B) has his odds go up to 2/3. Is this just a matter of perception, because it would seem that from C's perspective he would be the 1/3 and A would be the 2/3? My brain fails me, please enlighten.[/QUOTE] Ignore this post. I misread above. And moltke is a bloody idiot. | ||
|
ihatett
United States2289 Posts
| ||
|
camooT
United States1354 Posts
P.S. Moltke is a fucking idiot for being 3 pages behind everyone but your_killer. Please don't let us argue with him about this shit another 3 pages. edit: let me explain my last post. I misread the scenario. I thought what it said was that the warden would tell the convict one person who definitely was not being released, but instead it was that the convict conned the warden into revealing the name of someone not being released, OTHER THAN HIM (the convict). | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On May 04 2005 18:53 XaI)CyRiC wrote: Addendum #5: Martin Gardner's version, published in October 1959, involved three condemned prisoners, one of whom will be pardoned at random. One prisoner cons the warden into naming one of the other prisoners (other than the prisoner who is asking this of the warden) who will not be pardoned. Do this prisoner's (the one talking to the warden) chances of being pardoned then go up to 50%? This is identical to the Monty Hall trap, and this prisoner's chances are still 1/3, but the probability that the third prisoner will be pardoned have gone up to 2/3. Mr. Gardner got a flood of mail about this, much smaller than Ms. Savant's flood of mail. Marilyn Vos Savant's column was published in Parade magazine, on September 9, 1990. Subsequent readers' comment appeared on Dec. 2, 1990, Feb. 17, 1991, Jul. 7, 1991, Sep. 8, 1991, Oct. 13, 1991, Jan. 5, 1992, and Jan. 26, 1992. Also see The New York Times of July 21, 1991 (front page) and August 11, 1991 about the furor. Several articles in mathematical journals were also devoted to this. As per the bottom of http://www.jimloy.com/puzz/monty.htm Maybe I should have said that the person to be pardoned was chosen before C was revealed as one that will not be pardoned? This version I think comes to 2/3 because of the operative phrase: one of the other prisoners (Edited some of the quotes out to save space) | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On May 04 2005 19:07 camooT wrote: Oops. Should've read more closely. A does have a 1/3 chance, following the Monty Hall rule, because he forced the warden to pick someone other than him. If B were to do the same, the odds would be 1/3 for him as well. Notice the key difference: WHO is conning the warden ELIMINATES that person from being chosen. P.S. Moltke is a fucking idiot for being 3 pages behind everyone but your_killer. Please don't let us argue with him about this shit another 3 pages. edit: let me explain my last post. I misread the scenario. I thought what it said was that the warden would tell the convict one person who definitely was not being released, but instead it was that the convict conned the warden into revealing the name of someone not being released, OTHER THAN HIM (the convict). Thanks, that cleared things up  | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On May 04 2005 19:07 camooT wrote: Oops. Should've read more closely. A does have a 1/3 chance, following the Monty Hall rule, because he forced the warden to pick someone other than him. If B were to do the same, the odds would be 1/3 for him as well. Notice the key difference: WHO is conning the warden ELIMINATES that person from being chosen. P.S. Moltke is a fucking idiot for being 3 pages behind everyone but your_killer. Please don't let us argue with him about this shit another 3 pages. edit: let me explain my last post. I misread the scenario. I thought what it said was that the warden would tell the convict one person who definitely was not being released, but instead it was that the convict conned the warden into revealing the name of someone not being released, OTHER THAN HIM (the convict). In case you haven't noticed, I haven't read any pages beyond where i began posting. Stop flaming please. | ||
|
Zerius[TPR]
Canada1633 Posts
On May 04 2005 18:37 imRadu wrote: lost 10 IQ points reading this thread You dont have 10 to lose. | ||
|
OhThatDang
United States4685 Posts
| ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
On May 04 2005 12:00 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: I have a high IQ, but I lack the dedication to really make use of it. I am simply one of those naturally smart fuckers who remembers everything he reads but has no drive to read that much. Though that has been changing in the past year. EDIT: Please note that this does indeed mean that I value dedication far above natural ability. I will always have what I have, and chances are will not amount to anything more than a computer programmer. The dedicated people are the ones that become doctors, not people like me. My intelligence isn't something to admire. It is like tripping over a suitcase with a billion dollars in it. Who the fuck really cares? The guy lucky enough to stumble upon the suitcase and takes advantage of the situation he is given is the one who cares. EDITED because I think people will feel I'm trying to look "smart" in a topic about smart people... | ||
|
ihatett
United States2289 Posts
I don't care if none of you can understand that terribly written slop, I had to get it off my back. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
A good number of the people on this forum are clearly very bright, but I wouldn't limit the list to the big-wigs that people on the first page mentioned; I hate threads created for the purpose of sucking-off the moderators, famous players, etc.. | ||
|
camooT
United States1354 Posts
| ||
|
ihatett
United States2289 Posts
| ||
| ||
