Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 23:47:36 UTC No. 16446520

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOQowCeAnRs link to the video

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 00:51:27 UTC No. 16446591

Minesweeper works on the logic that you dig a square and then get information back. There's no pick and switch mechanism. But someone could make a version that had one.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 00:57:18 UTC No. 16446596

>>16446509
>give away free money
The show makes money from ad sales, not contestants. They could literally give a $1MM each to all three contestant whether they win or lose, and as long as the audience thinks it's exciting enough to keep watching the $4MM pharma ads, the show keeps going.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 01:23:53 UTC No. 16446623

make a tree of results

1 in 3 times you pick correctly first

The other 2 times you pick incorrectly

so its more likely you picked incorrectly before being asked to swap

After the host opens an incorrect door you know the final door will be the correct door 2 out of 3 times so you should swap

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 01:48:27 UTC No. 16446653

>>16446623
This is only true if the host has a 100% chance of opening an incorrect door.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 08:22:22 UTC No. 16446905

>>16446509
>The Simple Question that Stumped Everyone Except Marilyn vos Savant
I call fucking bs. It's not a difficult problem at all and I say that as someone with sub 130 (being very generous, it's probably close to 100 or 105) iq.
And, not even as a "difficult to get it right first time" problem. I first encountered a 10 door variant of this problem in an escape room video game(you know which one), and I correctly switched the door to give myself after calculating I have a 90% chance. I had no exposure to the problem beforehand.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 09:19:34 UTC No. 16446926

>>16446509
What happens if there are 1000 doors and the host closes 998 loser doors? According to you, are the odds still just 1/2, or do they increase substantially because the host has eliminated all the other lose doors?

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 09:35:33 UTC No. 16446937

>>16446653
The host always picks an incorrect door afaik, thise are the rules.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 10:16:00 UTC No. 16446979

>>16446653
Yes, that's already given. The host "always" opens the door with a goat, lrn2rd

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 11:57:53 UTC No. 16447071

>>16446905
Plenty of people before her answered it correctly and she has never claimed to be the only person to get it correct. That's simply a clickbait title to get attention and obviously it worked.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 12:47:09 UTC No. 16447107

>>16446509
>You can't win minesweeper games with this logic, so why would it apply in real world either?
The host knows which door hides the prize and so in most circumstances is not picking randomly.
Your dumb ass clicking on a square that looks funny is not analogous.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 17:13:42 UTC No. 16447520

>>16446926
Does the host do this no matter what? He clearly knows the answer, and might be trying to shake me off of it. If he only does this in response to me getting the 1 in a 1000 chance right square, he can successfully make me change my answer. That's the real question. We already know he knows the winning square. I don't think you can discount this unless his response is always to uncover all but 2 remaining.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 17:29:42 UTC No. 16447554

>>16447520
He will always eliminate exactly n-2 wrong answers and will never pick the door you picked. Those are the constraints for the host's behavior, and define the problem well enough.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:05:42 UTC No. 16447601

>>16446937
>>16446979
The OP is about a specific statement of the problem written by Whitaker and answered by Savant. Neither the question nor the answer said that the host always opens an incorrect goat door.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:29:46 UTC No. 16447632

>>16447601
yes it does, it wouldn't make any sens eif he didn't open the goat door

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:36:15 UTC No. 16447652

>>16447632
I agree that the question is retarded if you don't assume the host opens goat door 100% of the time. I'm criticizing vos savant for being a stupid cunt who couldn't even make her own bed neatly.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:40:29 UTC No. 16447661

>>16446509
I have a car. I don't have a goat though. What if i want the goat?

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:52:16 UTC No. 16447680

>>16447661
Then you have 100% chance of picking the goat door that was kindly offered to you by host

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 18:11:30 UTC No. 16449253

eliminating 1/3 leaves remaining doors as 1/2 . Saying otherwise means you've already been groomed by the AI

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 10:42:10 UTC No. 16450294

>>16446509
It does apply. Try playing buckshot roulette.
It's just a pure probability calculation, there are no mind games behind it, the tv show setting is just there to explain the math problem easier. You can imagine it as just numbers, without host and doors at all.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 17:14:46 UTC No. 16450957

>>16450294
It's not very good math if it breaks on minesweeper. Math that doesn't work in real world is no math at all

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 19:53:57 UTC No. 16451135

>>16450957
It doesn't apply to minesweeper. More than that, there wouldn't *be* classic games it would apply to because in the end there's only one meta. It would rely entirely on whether or not someone grasped a single thing and that would make a brittle gimmick for a game.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 20:09:27 UTC No. 16451147

>>16447652
The show was part of the collective cultural knowledge base when the article appeared in Parade magazine in 1990. As such, it was reasonable to assume the audience would understand the assumptions that you are whining weren't explicitly written on in a print publication, which if you're too young to understand that context too, means words were limited. Your lack of understanding the cultural context of the time period is your own fault.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 20:33:06 UTC No. 16451172

>>16446509
Vos savant will always be a relic of the Boomer era. Grifters like her and Langan deserve to be forgotten forever.

It's a shame how much these people have tainted the very real study of IQ by using it as their own personal calling card.

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:07:32 UTC No. 16452511

>>16451135
Where does it apply? If it's math that cannot be applied to anywhere where odds matter (minesweeper is a game of odds), then it's useless math, is it not? This is couple of steps away from jew trying to horseshoe their zohar mysticism into mainstream science through quantum mechanics and selling their ideology to otherwise atheist people whom don't know the origin of said science.

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 20:05:44 UTC No. 16452674

Regarding the 3 door game, it boils down to as simple as this:

There are 3 doors. You pick a door, and the host opens a Losing Door. (If you pick a Losing Door, he opens the remaining Losing Door. If you pick a Winning Door, he opens a random Losing Door.)

You pick the Winning Door [#1], Host opens a Losing Door [#2 or #3] -> Switch = Lose

You pick a Losing Door [#2], Host opens the other Losing Door [#3] -> Switch = Win

You pick a Losing Door [#3], Host opens the other Losing Door [#2] -> Switch = Win

It's not about which door, it's about whether or not switching results in a win. In the first scenario, switching results in a loss no matter which door the host opens. In the latter two scenarios, switching results in a win because he can only open the other losing door, leaving only the winning door to switch to.

This means switching is always the more mathematically advantageous choice.

But, this means switching results in a loss ONLY if you picked correctly the first time, which makes it even more frustrating to lose.