Stuart McLachlan
stuart at lexacorp.com.pg
Fri Aug 26 07:01:52 CDT 2005
On 26 Aug 2005 at 13:40, Lembit Soobik wrote: > I think you make it too complicated. > forget the history. That's the flaw in your argument. You can't forget the history. > at the end, what you have is two doors: > one is the winning door > just pick one. > doesnt matter what you had picked before Yes it does. > doesnt matter whether you swap or not. Yes it does. > and you can write simulation programs till the cows come home And if they are written correctly, they will give you the correct answer over enough trials. > fact is you have one right and one wrong and have to pick one > so you have 1 out of two chance thats all. > Fact is, when you first picked you had three choices. The odds are 1/3 you are right initially. In that one case, switching is wrong. In the 2/3 where you were wrong initially, changing will always give you the correct door. (Assuming the problem is stated correctly. As I said previous, you need to qualify it by saying "I open another door which I know contains a dead fish and show you the contents" If you could open the money door by accident, it is a different situation.) So in 1/3 cases you win by staying, in 2/3 cases you win by switching. -- Stuart