Is the Official Google Answer to this Controversial Interview Question Correct?

[DeDunc]

So DH are you saying, if I take up the bet with him.

a) I would expect to win if I call him on his maths- as the only answer- even in this restricted sense is 0.5

b) I would expect to win if I call him on his interpretation of the problem.

He is offering a quite substantial bet on both options.

 

[D H]

You should expect to lose if you take him up on his terms. He has redefined the problem to be something other than that asked by the question. In other words, he is cheating.

Cheating, by the way, is yet another way to make a martingale have an outcome that differs from what probability theory says it should be.

 

[DeDunc]

Thanks DH

But he says he is willing to make a bet to show that most stats professors will define/interpret the puzzle in the way that he has.

From discussions on here, would you not say I would have more than evens chance of winning

 

[D H]

I really don't want to get involved in and I don't really care about this imbroglio. Some supposedly brilliant scientist is wrong and is strong-headedly digging himself a grave about being right. So what else is new? Have at it if you do.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If you want to make a bet with him, make a bet with him. But this is starting to turn into "but he said so!".

Let me also point out again that this same argument applies to lottery tickets. I wouldn't try to get $15,000 out of my colleagues, where it's dependent on interpretation. I'd just get it out of the state lottery office, where they cannot argue about whether you are holding a winning ticket.

 

[DeDunc]

Thanks Guys. Your contributions have been very helpful.

As Vanadium suggests, it does look like a martingale.