I A variant of the Monty Hall problem

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Pikkugnome
  • Start date Start date
Pikkugnome
Messages
24
Reaction score
7
There is a nice little variation of the problem. The host says, after you have chosen the door, that you can change your guess, but to sweeten the deal, he says you can choose the two other doors, if you wish. This proposition is a no brainer, however before you are quick enough to accept it, the host opens one of the two doors and it is empty. In this version you really want to change your pick, but at the same time ask yourself is the host impartial and does that change anything. The host could just guess which door he opens and what is inside is random, maybe the host always opens an empty door or perhaps you get the choice only when you picked correctly initially.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Pikkugnome said:
maybe the host always opens an empty door or perhaps you get the choice only when you picked correctly initially.
This is fundamentally different. It is critical in the original puzzle that the host can not open a door with the prize and his offer does not depend on whether your door is the winner.
 
FactChecker said:
This is fundamentally different. It is critical in the original puzzle that the host can not open a door with the prize and his offer does not depend on whether your door is the winner.
I think the point was the complication that Monty does not always give you the choice to switch. This is news to me! That adds a new parameter to the problem.

If the contestant picks the correct door, then the probablity that Monty Hall offers a switch is ##p_1##, say. And, if the contestant picks the wrong door, then the probability that Monty offers a switch is ##p_2##.

Then the best strategy depends on these probabilities. For example, if ##p_1 = 1## and ##p_2 = 0##, then you are only offered a switch when you have picked the correct door! If you know this, then you stick whenever you are given the chance.

It depends, therefore, whether ##\frac 2 3 p_2 > \frac 1 3 p_1##. So, in fact, the problem is not very complicated, but there are some new variable parameters.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes FactChecker
PS the overall chance of winning is:

Stick strategy: ##\frac 1 3 (1-p_1) + \frac 1 3 p_1 = \frac 1 3##

Switch strategy: ##\frac 1 3 (1 - p_1) + \frac 2 3 p_2 = \frac 1 3 + \frac 1 3(2p_2 - p_1)##

So, dare I say, if ##p_1 = 2p_2##, then the probability of winning with the switch strategy, in general, reduces to ##\frac 1 3##!

And, of course, if ##p_1 > 2p_2##, then it's better to stick.
 
PeroK said:
I think the point was the complication that Monty does not always give you the choice to switch. This is news to me! That adds a new parameter to the problem.
Good point. This brings in aspects of game theory. If the host plays games to offer a switch more often when the contestant's door is a winner, the contestant might catch on and never switch. Then the host might fool the contestant by offering when the contestant's door is a loser. It is basic game theory. Von Neumann would love it.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
There is a nice little variation of the problem. The host says, after you have chosen the door, that you can change your guess, but to sweeten the deal, he says you can choose the two other doors, if you wish. This proposition is a no brainer, however before you are quick enough to accept it, the host opens one of the two doors and it is empty. In this version you really want to change your pick, but at the same time ask yourself is the host impartial and does that change anything. The host...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.