Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tim McCormick who wrote (33648)	4/5/1999 9:52:00 AM
From: On the QT	Respond to of 108807

Hi Tim, I finally caught up on this and if you review my post on Chuzz challenge you will see that I support Chuzz answer to his initial challenge. While your argument is intelligent and most intriguing, I believe that when you again review our posts, you will be in agreement with us. I have just seen your response back and forth to Chuzz and while I understand how you arrived at your conclusion, if I understood the challenge correctly, the choice(s)to determine where the RR were was, were always made by the contestant. Therefore, the first and original choice made by the contestant was always real. The contestant could remain with that choice (1 out 3) and nothing that Monty could do with the other two curtains would change the odds of that first and real choice from being determined by probability and proved by the law of averages as correct. In other words, regardless of any other enticements Monty could have made, the outcome over the long term of the first choice being correct would be and 1 out 3 and will undoubtedly be supported by the law of averages. If you accept that as true then the next step is to determine if the second choice,if offered is real. Since here again the choice is made by the contestant to pick the curtain with the RR behind it and there is nothing that Monty could do alter the second choice made by the contestant and nothing Monty could do to invalidate that second choice outcome (short of cheating). If you accept that as true then that second choice is subject to the same kind of probability mathematics and law of average outcome. Nothing that Monty could do (short of cheating) could change the control of the choice(s). Since they are always made by the contestant and must be adhered to by Monte, both choices, if offered are real and subject to mathematical proof. In both cases, the mathematics supporting the probability of the first choice and the second choice have been supplied by both Chuzz and myself. While we example our proof in a different fashion we arrived at the same conclusion. All of this assumes that neither Monte nor the contestant are in any form cheating. The conclusion that Chuzz and I arrive at, as I currently understand it, are: The first choice is arbitrary and strictly by random chance (1 out 3). The second choice, if offered, should be to discard the first choice (1 out 3 probability outcome) in favor of the only other choice offered ( 2 out of 3 probability outcome). That second choice is not random and not equal to the chances of the first choice. The second choice ( to discard the first choice and choose the only other choice available) is indeed mathematically determined to be the better choice of the two. Are we in agreement? Regards, QT PS Since this is a place to talk about our feelings, I feel tired and somewhat pressured but in good spirits nevertheless. Have much to do and little time to do it. However, making the time to respond to one of Chuzzlewit's challanging posts is the least I can do for someone who has contributed so much. On this I am confident that many will agree.