undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjstx13y ago0 comments

This doesn't do anything for me.

(I understand the Monty Hall problem, I just don't see how changing the number of doors makes a difference to anyone's intuition.)

0 comments

8 comments · 4 top-level

brigandish3y ago· 2 in thread

It's because it makes the initial choice so increasingly unlikely (increasing with the number of doors) to be correct that when the doors are taken away and you're left with only two, one of which must be right, it means that the other door is incredibly likely to be the right one.

jstx1OP3y ago

> It's because it makes the initial choice so increasingly unlikely

But you still need to conivnce people that the one remaining unopened door is more likely than the door you originally selected. They were both unlikely to begin with, ramping up the number of doors doesn't explaing why one of them should be preferred.

brigandish3y ago

There are 1000 doors. You choose 1. Anyone knows it's incredibly unlikely that the correct one is chosen first time.

Now 998 doors are removed. There is 1 door from the others and the door you choose. Given that your choice is almost certainly wrong, and that your opponent couldn't remove the correct door from amongst the 998, that means the other door is the correct one.

Is that convincing enough?

curiousgal3y ago· 2 in thread

Imagine there are 999 boxes with nothing in them and one box with the keys. After picking a box, the hosts opens 998 empty boxes. Would you still stick with your initial choice?

jstx1OP3y ago

I would change my choice because I understand the problem. But I would also change my choice in the scenario with 3 boxes. I'm not arguing with the conclusion, what I don't understand is the people who have their mind changed by the argument.

Extending it to 1000 boxes/doors still doesn't explain why the remaining unopened box is different from the box your picked originally.

curiousgal3y ago

> the remaining unopened box is different from the box your picked originally.

Because you now know that every other box is empty. So by process of elimination you know that your box and the remaining one are different.

coldtea3y ago

Because a 99/100 chance is much better than 2/3 to drive the point home...

__s3y ago

I've often found it easier to understand things intuitively by putting an idea to the slippery slope test. If such & such were true, imagine changing some parameters to an extreme, how absurd does it become? For monotonic functions it's useful

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

8 comments · 4 top-level

brigandish3y ago· 2 in thread

jstx1OP3y ago

> It's because it makes the initial choice so increasingly unlikely

brigandish3y ago

There are 1000 doors. You choose 1. Anyone knows it's incredibly unlikely that the correct one is chosen first time.

Is that convincing enough?

curiousgal3y ago· 2 in thread

Imagine there are 999 boxes with nothing in them and one box with the keys. After picking a box, the hosts opens 998 empty boxes. Would you still stick with your initial choice?

jstx1OP3y ago

Extending it to 1000 boxes/doors still doesn't explain why the remaining unopened box is different from the box your picked originally.

curiousgal3y ago

> the remaining unopened box is different from the box your picked originally.

Because you now know that every other box is empty. So by process of elimination you know that your box and the remaining one are different.

coldtea3y ago

Because a 99/100 chance is much better than 2/3 to drive the point home...

__s3y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse