What Should You Choose: Stick with Door A or Switch to Door B?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter tanujkush
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Game Welcome
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a probability puzzle involving three doors, where one door conceals a valuable prize and the others contain nothing. Participants explore whether it is advantageous to switch doors after one non-winning door is revealed, considering various assumptions about the knowledge of the host.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Debate/contested, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that changing doors increases the odds of winning to 2/3, referencing a closed form proof for this assertion.
  • Others question the implications of the host's knowledge about the doors, noting that if the host does not know what is behind each door, switching may not affect the outcome.
  • A participant expresses philosophical uncertainty about whether to switch, considering the host's potential knowledge and the implications of not knowing that knowledge.
  • One participant recalls encountering this problem in an introductory probability text, indicating its longstanding presence in discussions of probability theory.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the impact of the host's knowledge on the decision to switch doors, leading to unresolved questions about the optimal strategy in this scenario.

Contextual Notes

Assumptions about the host's knowledge and the implications of uncertainty are central to the discussion, with participants not reaching a consensus on how these factors influence the decision-making process.

tanujkush
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Welcome to the game of doors!

Anchor: Alright then, you have three doors in front of you, A, B, C. Two of these three contain nothing, one contains the proof of the unified theory yet unknown to man :biggrin:. You can choose anyone door, which one do you choose?

You: Uhmmm.. I think I'll go with door A

Anchor: Are you sure?

You: Yeah!

Anchor: (opening door C) Well well, there is nothing behind door C! Arent you glad you didnt choose that door?

You: (wiping the sweat off) Yeah! Now show me what's behind door A.

Anchor: Wait a minute, what if I made you an offer. Would you like to change your door? Would you like to choose door B instead?

You: (Damn, I should have paid attention to those undergrad probability lessons!) Uhmmm.. I don't know... I think I will go with what probability tells me. Let's ask the folks over at Physics Forums what they think? Should I change doors or stick?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Change.

(CompuChip wonders why this puzzle has been around since like 1000 AD and nobody got to see the proof yet).
 


CompuChip said:
Change.

(CompuChip wonders why this puzzle has been around since like 1000 AD and nobody got to see the proof yet).

there is a proper closed form proof for this really.
 


Ch-ch-changes
Just going to have to be a different man
Time may change me
But I can't trace time
 
Last edited:


tanujkush said:
there is a proper closed form proof for this really.

Then you should publish it and get famous.

(I was talking about the Riemann hypothesis of course, the proof of why changing the doors increases your odds of winning to 2/3 can be written out on a single line).
 


CompuChip said:
(I was talking about the Riemann hypothesis of course, the proof of why changing the doors increases your odds of winning to 2/3 can be written out on a single line).

I of course, was talking about the second part of your quote.
 


tanujkush said:
...
Anchor: Wait a minute, what if I made you an offer. Would you like to change your door? Would you like to choose door B instead?

It depends.
Does the Anchor know the doors a priori?
If he doesn't know what is behind each door, then changing from door A to door B makes no difference.
 


I remember, about 20 years ago, seeing this problem as an exercise in chapter 1 of an introductory probability text.
 


This problem still stumps me somewhat, philosophically speaking. Suppose the anchor did not know a priori, but I didn't know that she didn't know. Shouldn't I still change?

Put differently: suppose I don't know with certainty whether she knew. If she knew, then I better change. If she didn't, then (by the logic presented somewhere along the thread) it's all random and I'll be no worse off if I changed. On the net, I should change.

Since I can never know with certainty that she didn't know, I should change every single time I am in this position.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 131 ·
5
Replies
131
Views
9K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 212 ·
8
Replies
212
Views
17K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
7K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
16K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K