Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 10:35:51 UTC No. 16181263

>>16181242
its most likely about digestability
hollywood is 'wrong' so often about such trivial things that you must come to the conclusoon it never was about being right, but about the picture, the story, the dialogue and so on... shocking I know.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 13:10:24 UTC No. 16181390

>>16181242
In short they don't really need to, its just needs to look like what they're doing is complicated in the context of the film.
Its like that 4koma meme where someone is thinking with a bunch of highschool level math super imposed over each of the pannels

Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 14:45:18 UTC No. 16181510

>Teacher: How do you know he's not tricking you, using reverse psychology by offering you another choice.
>Student: It doesn't matter, it's simple probability. 33% is the answer.
Except it does matter and completely changes everything. The probability is 1/3 only in the model where the presenter ALWAYS opens a door with a goat no matter what you choose.
However, if he's actually trying to trick you sometimes, for example in the model where he always opens a goat when you pick a car, but otherwise doesn't let you choose again, you NEVER want to switch. In this model, the probability of winning a car if you switch is 0%, and 100% probability of winning a car if you stay.
So if there's a possibility that the host is trying to trick you, the probability is no longer 33% but a complex combination of 33% and 100%, which could be whatever. The model is underspecified.