Please Explain (actually explain) The Monty Hall Problem

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Timbre
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Monty Hall Problem, a probability puzzle involving a game show scenario where a contestant must choose between three doors, behind one of which is a prize. Participants explore the implications of the initial choice and the information revealed by the host's actions, questioning the relevance of the first choice in determining the final probability of winning.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that the first choice is immaterial and does not affect the outcome of the game, suggesting that the game continues regardless of the initial selection.
  • Another participant counters that the act of the host revealing a losing door provides crucial information that impacts the probabilities involved.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes that the first choice does not provide relevant information, asserting that the final decision is what ultimately matters.
  • Some participants illustrate the problem using variants with more doors, arguing that the principle remains the same and that switching doors increases the chances of winning.
  • There is a contention regarding the assumption of equal probability in the final choice, with some asserting that the probabilities are not equiprobable after the host's reveal.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relevance of the first choice in the Monty Hall Problem. While some believe it has no bearing on the outcome, others argue that it does provide information that influences the final probabilities. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives present.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various scenarios and analogies to illustrate their points, indicating that the discussion is nuanced and depends on interpretations of probability and information theory. There are unresolved assumptions regarding the nature of the game and the implications of the host's actions.

  • #121
I thought of another angle. Imagine the game is played simultaneously by three players, each with their own instance of the game. In each game the car is behind the same random door for all three players.

The first player always chooses door 1 and sticks; the second player always chooses door 2 and sticks; and, the third player always chooses door 3 and sticks.

If stick wins 50% of the time, then each player must win 50% of the time, and the car must be behind each door 50% of the time. Which is impossible.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale, javisot and Ibix
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
PeroK said:
If stick wins 50% of the time, then each player must win 50% of the time, and the car must be behind each door 50% of the time. Which is impossible.
I really like this one. I realise it's the "stick only wins if you guessed right first time" explanation turned round a bit, but it explicitly forces you to fit three things evenly into two boxes if you want to believe 50/50. Neat.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 212 ·
8
Replies
212
Views
17K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 89 ·
3
Replies
89
Views
11K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
16K