##### Dex-chan lover

- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018

- Messages
- 5,156

What ispart of the monty hall problem is that the host ALWAYS reveals a door not chosen by the contestant and without the prize behind it.

*always*given is

*a sequence of events*; what is often

*not*given is

*why*Monty selected that door; but the

*rule*that he uses determines how Bayes' theorem can then be applied. It determines how it applies in the one-person game, and whether Bayes' theorem is useful to one of the contestants in a two-person game.

You can't transform your mistaken presumptions into truth bythis is why it OBVIOUSLY doesn't work with two contestants.

*shouting that they are obvious*. I've already noted how, if in the two-contestant case he uses a rule that also explains his choice in the one-contestant case, then the reasoning

*does*work for one of the two contestants.

It's sad that people often think that they learned math (and other things) in high school but really didn't understand it then nor come to understand it later. (Often, the teachers and journalists who supposedly explained it were incompetent.)crazy how you're apparently reading advanced stats papers and shit but don't even know the monty hall problem which is high school maths.

The reason that

*so many*mathematicians

*supposedly*got the Monty Hall Problem wrong was that it was mis-stated (specifically in the column of Marilyn vos Savant which appeared in

*Parade*). Initial probabilities and the rule used by Monty were omitted. But people who blithely use the principle of insufficient reason didn't recognize the importance of the first omission, and a large group of people

*guessed*at Monty's rule without realizing that they were guessing.