On another forum there was the 3 doors question.There was a guy that could not accept the switching doors strategy.And he was able to reword the question in such a way that anyone new to the thread would agree with him.But of course he wasn't asking the original question.
(If this post gets any responses at all, it will be a derail. Then I can try to test out my mod powerz by splitting off the resulting derail to a new thread.)Quote from: buttershug on June 05, 2016, 03:30:23 PMOn another forum there was the 3 doors question.There was a guy that could not accept the switching doors strategy.And he was able to reword the question in such a way that anyone new to the thread would agree with him.But of course he wasn't asking the original question.The Monty Hall problem?There was a substantial thread about that in the early days of TR.The now-canonical answer (that switching doors is the best strategy) is based on an assumption that wasn't in the problem as originally worded. It's a reasonable assumption, but it's still an assumption.If someone questions the switching-doors strategy, one of the standard responses is to challenge the questioner to write a simple simulation to test the problem out. In order to make it possible to write that simulation, most people end up making the canonical assumption without even thinking about it. So of course they end up with the canonical answer.It isn't hard to come up with other scenarios, also consistent with the problem as originally worded, where switching doors is not the best strategy.
The guy was sure that things had to happen behind the doors for the probability to change.
And your welcome. (check the wayback depository thread)I'm not even going to check if someone beat me to it and I didn't see it. ( I almost put one unmatched parenthesis)