Impeccable logic

[joe-90]

Inductive reasoning, Joe.

Was discredited 250 years ago.

Please explain John.

 

[Softus]

Can you kindly tell us what the odds are then?

Yes.

Sorry jackpot, in retrospect that was a bit blunt. I'll rephrase...

Yes. And I mean that most kindly.

 

[jackpot]

Share it with us then and tell us the reasoning and calcualtions behind it.

Assuming that you're referring to joe-90's stated scenario of replacing the original family member who was playing the Monty Hall role, then the odds are in favour of swapping, because the probability of the object being under the alternative cup is 2/3.

The reasoning supporting this conclusion is published earlier on this topic, and also on approximately four zillion trillion million web sites on the subject.

Wrong. The family member from the beginning has a 2 in 3 chance of not picking the object. That does not mean that when one is taken away there is a 2 in 3 chance of it being in the other cup. Like i said if there was people by the cups and did not know who had the object then each person has a 1 in 3 chance of having it. Yes the probability of it being in another cup is 2:3 but that also goes for the other people to. Then as 1 is eliminated the amount of options is reduced and so does the odds. Probability of being under another cup. 1:2. Probabilty of having the object. 1:2

 

[JohnD]

take the money Joe

Put up or shut up.

 

[joe-90]

I'm asking YOU to explain yourself John.

 

[Softus]

The family member from the beginning has a 2 in 3 chance of not picking the object. That does not mean that when one is taken away there is a 2 in 3 chance of it being in the other cup.

That is precisely what it does mean. To misunderstand this point is to misunderstand how to calculate statistical probability.

Like i said if there was people by the cups and did not know who had the object then each person has a 1 in 3 chance of having it. Yes the probability of it being in another cup is 2:3 but that also goes for the other people to. Then as 1 is eliminated the amount of options is reduced and so does the odds. Probability of being under another cup. 1:2. Probabilty of having the object. 1:2

Perhaps it's time for you to put your video tape where your mouth is.

 

[Softus]

If you decline, then that's your choice, but as I've said before, many times, I'm happy to agree to disagree with you on this topic and to leave it at that.

In other words Softus is admitting that Joe-90 is right and he is wrong.

Yes joe; those are indeed some other words.

 

[joe-90]

Softus. The odds with respect to the original family member with three cups are different to the odds of the second family member who joins when there a two cups. Even you can see that much, surely?

 

[JohnD]

Inductive reasoning, Joe.

Was discredited 250 years ago.

Please explain John.

You have got the 50:50 idea into your head and are convincing yourself that your arguments in favour of it are correct. However this opinion is unsupported by experimental evidence or observations allowing youy to deduce the facts. If you were to test your belief by experiment and observation you could (if you can demonstrate it to be true) receive the £100 prize. If money is less important to you than the trouble of doing the work, you could make a counter-off of £100 from your own pocket.

Relying on "common sense" can lead you astray. Obviously the world was flat, and obviously the Sun goes round the earth, and obviously the earth does not move. Only by experiment and observation could these "facts" be proved wrong.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
cf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

 

[Softus]

Your attempts to get me to disagree with you all over again are futile.

If it's as obvious as you make out then I'm sure you'll have no difficulty in filming it.

 

[joe-90]

So Softus, if I make a video of me flipping a coin 100 times you'll give me a hundred quid?

 

[jackpot]

Share it with us then and tell us the reasoning and calcualtions behind it.

Assuming that you're referring to joe-90's stated scenario of replacing the original family member who was playing the Monty Hall role, then the odds are in favour of swapping, because the probability of the object being under the alternative cup is 2/3.

The reasoning supporting this conclusion is published earlier on this topic, and also on approximately four zillion trillion million web sites on the subject.

Taken from the Monty Hall website:
"If the host (Monty Hall) does not know where the car is behind the other two doors, then the answer to the question is "IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE CONTESTANT SWITCHES."

Correct me if im wrong but going back to the Ops post. The presenter, contestants and anyone else does not know which box the 250k is in. So like its said above coming directly from the Monty Hall site.

IT DOES NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF THE CONTESTANT SWITCHES.

 

[joe-90]

Inductive reasoning, Joe.

Was discredited 250 years ago.

Please explain John.

You have got the 50:50 idea into your head and are convincing yourself that your arguments in favour of it are correct. However this opinion is unsupported by experimental evidence or observations allowing youy to deduce the facts. If you were to test your belief by experiment and observation you could (if you can demonstrate it to be true) receive the £100 prize. If money is less important to you than the trouble of doing the work, you could make a counter-off of £100 from your own pocket.

Relying on "common sense" can lead you astray. Obviously the world was flat, and obviously the Sun goes round the earth, and obviously the earth does not move. Only by experiment and observation could these "facts" be proved wrong.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
cf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning[/QUOTE]

John. There are two cups. One has an object under it and one does not.
Call it heads or tails. Call it 0 and 1 call it what you like. Call it Arthur and Doris if you wish but with just two objects - then there can only ever be one mathematical outcome and that is one cup has the object under it and one cup does not. Take a coin out of your pocket, John. One side has a 'head' and one a 'tail' - now flip it 100 times and post the result.

 

[Softus]

I daresay that someone will want to claim that this experiment doesn't fairly or accurately represent the problem being discussed. To that person I make the following offer: construct any practical demonstration, of your own choosing, that shows that the alleged 50:50 odds are correct, and I'll still send you £100.

So Softus, if I make a video of me flipping a coin 100 times you'll give me a hundred quid?

What do you really think joe, when your suggestion was to use three cups and three people?

 

[joe-90]

I daresay that someone will want to claim that this experiment doesn't fairly or accurately represent the problem being discussed. To that person I make the following offer: construct any practical demonstration, of your own choosing, that shows that the alleged 50:50 odds are correct, and I'll still send you £100.

So Softus, if I make a video of me flipping a coin 100 times you'll give me a hundred quid?

What do you really think joe, when your suggestion was to use three cups and three people?

That wasn't me. I was talking about a family member that arrived on the scene when there were two cups only, which have the same odds as a coin.