## Game Show Problem

**Moderator:** Marilyn

### Re: Game Show Problem

Gofer stolidly refuses to look up the definition of an event. Try here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_(probability_theory). But no, Gofer thinks that the definition is "anything that can be put inside the parentheses of the Pr() function. Maybe he should look here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_space#Conditional_probability.

In the post that Gofer finally referenced after almost a year of arguing, I clearly defined a problem. Part of that clear, unambiguous problem definition was "Say you play 300 games, and pick Door #1 in all of them." From that problem definition, a probability space can be easily inferred, if you are such a pedantic **** that you feel the need to have one. And anybody but that pedantic **** would easily see that the door chosen by the contestant is not subject to randomness, so "Pr(Open=3|P=1)" would have been incorrect.

In the post that Gofer finally referenced after almost a year of arguing, I clearly defined a problem. Part of that clear, unambiguous problem definition was "Say you play 300 games, and pick Door #1 in all of them." From that problem definition, a probability space can be easily inferred, if you are such a pedantic **** that you feel the need to have one. And anybody but that pedantic **** would easily see that the door chosen by the contestant is not subject to randomness, so "Pr(Open=3|P=1)" would have been incorrect.

- JeffJo
- Intellectual
**Posts:**2605**Joined:**Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:01 am

### Re: Game Show Problem

Jeff apparently has the short-term memory of a goldfish. Just a couple of posts back, I clearly explained events. They are the points of the sigma algebra.

> Part of that clear, unambiguous problem definition was "Say you play 300 games, and pick Door #1 in all of them."

Jeff conveniently forgets to inform the readers that that quote wasn't part of his formal derivation on page 133, but a separate section of the same posting, delimited by "++++++".

Here's what really happened. Jeff probably had the experiment, and thereby the implied probability space, in the back of his mind, but forgot to include it in the derivation, hence his statement "we know", on page 133, and which references prior knowledge or derivation, hence his usage of "=" rather than ":=".

> so "Pr(Open=3|P=1)" would have been incorrect.

Not if Pr is associated with a probability space describing an experiment where all the three actions of the host, player and the car are taken into consideration.

> Part of that clear, unambiguous problem definition was "Say you play 300 games, and pick Door #1 in all of them."

Jeff conveniently forgets to inform the readers that that quote wasn't part of his formal derivation on page 133, but a separate section of the same posting, delimited by "++++++".

Here's what really happened. Jeff probably had the experiment, and thereby the implied probability space, in the back of his mind, but forgot to include it in the derivation, hence his statement "we know", on page 133, and which references prior knowledge or derivation, hence his usage of "=" rather than ":=".

> so "Pr(Open=3|P=1)" would have been incorrect.

Not if Pr is associated with a probability space describing an experiment where all the three actions of the host, player and the car are taken into consideration.

- Gofer
- Intellectual
**Posts:**282**Joined:**Mon May 09, 2016 8:24 am

### Re: Game Show Problem

Gofer apparently has the short-term memory of a goldfish. Just a couple of posts back, I clearly explained that, while the elements of the sigma algebra specific to the probability space, that relationship defines neither a sigma algebra, nor an event.

But he thinks "A|B" is denotes an event, he is free to show us the sigma algebra it belongs to.

> Part of that clear, unambiguous problem definition was "Say you play 300 games, and

> pick Door #1 in all of them."

What Gofer conveniently forgets to inform the readers, is that the formal derivation of a solution has to address the problem it is solving, not what Gofer whats it to have been to he can claim there was a mistake where there was none. So Gofer is free to show us what part of the problem that was addresses requires a random variable addressing the contestant's choice.

>> so "Pr(Open=3|P=1)" would have been incorrect.

>

> Not if Pr is associated with a probability space describing an experiment

> where all the three actions of the host, player and the car are taken into

> consideration.

Gofer's favorite method of lying is to preface his assertions with "if XXX," and then not justifying why we should accept XXX. Or, as in this case, deliberately avoiding why we can't.

Here's what really happened. Gofer doesn't like to be called wrong, so he made up an error, and waited a year to explain what he meant.

But he thinks "A|B" is denotes an event, he is free to show us the sigma algebra it belongs to.

> Part of that clear, unambiguous problem definition was "Say you play 300 games, and

> pick Door #1 in all of them."

What Gofer conveniently forgets to inform the readers, is that the formal derivation of a solution has to address the problem it is solving, not what Gofer whats it to have been to he can claim there was a mistake where there was none. So Gofer is free to show us what part of the problem that was addresses requires a random variable addressing the contestant's choice.

>> so "Pr(Open=3|P=1)" would have been incorrect.

>

> Not if Pr is associated with a probability space describing an experiment

> where all the three actions of the host, player and the car are taken into

> consideration.

Gofer's favorite method of lying is to preface his assertions with "if XXX," and then not justifying why we should accept XXX. Or, as in this case, deliberately avoiding why we can't.

Here's what really happened. Gofer doesn't like to be called wrong, so he made up an error, and waited a year to explain what he meant.

- JeffJo
- Intellectual
**Posts:**2605**Joined:**Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:01 am

### Re: Game Show Problem

Actually almost professors are fool.

Because they are just good at memorizing.

But unfortunately they are good at IQ test.

So we must divide IQ into 3 kinds of IQs like computer.(CPU IQ,RAM IQ, HDD IQ)

I think CPU IQ is important to solve this problem. I could solve this problem easily evenif my IQ is 95.

For example

Me(normal IQ 95)

CPU IQ 126(I can solve the problem)

RAM IQ 70

HDD IQ 90

Normal professor(normal IQ 130)

CPU IQ 110(they can not solve the problem)

RAM IQ 120

HDD IQ 160

Because they are just good at memorizing.

But unfortunately they are good at IQ test.

So we must divide IQ into 3 kinds of IQs like computer.(CPU IQ,RAM IQ, HDD IQ)

I think CPU IQ is important to solve this problem. I could solve this problem easily evenif my IQ is 95.

For example

Me(normal IQ 95)

CPU IQ 126(I can solve the problem)

RAM IQ 70

HDD IQ 90

Normal professor(normal IQ 130)

CPU IQ 110(they can not solve the problem)

RAM IQ 120

HDD IQ 160

- IQprofessor
- Thinker
**Posts:**4**Joined:**Mon May 22, 2017 3:21 am

Return to Online Articles By Marilyn

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest