This whole FL controversy(and its resultant proponents reasoning) reminds me of the following problem, submitted to Marilyn vos Savant, in 1991:
"Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the other doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, 'Do you want to pick door No. 2?' Is it to your advantage to take the switch?"[added by Greg: It is further assumed that the host ALWAYS makes this offer to the contestant, irrespective of what door the contestant initially chose]
This question produced incredible controversy. Probability experts lined up on both sides...with most actually disagreeing with the answer she gave. I leave it to you all to ponder. My addendum is not what triggered the controversy, but it was what the losing side used as an excuse for their error after they could no longer prove their assertion. In reality, this addendum was a tacit assumption of the original problem.
Any takers? |
