Critical thinking
Trudgin
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 6,348
Kind Sir - High Majesty the King; A few words from the innocent not guilty!!
I understand your grief and no words may relieve the pain you are enduring.
Please do not make a rash decision about killing us. If you choose to pardon one, it may still be the killer and you have accomplished nothing. He will probably kill again!!
The arse in cell B has confessed to both myself and the gent in cell C. Would not it be a better tribute to your son to get the right guy!?!
Evidence of his deceitful nature is the tunnel he masterminded in an attempt to escape. His efforts only manifested in digging a tunnel between cell A and B to date, however. This is additional evidence of his misanthropic behaviors.
Also, your warden has a big mouth - while he would not tell me who was to be pardoned, he did state the gent in cell C would not be pardoned. In my way of thinking, he skirted your orders not to tell anyone who would be pardoned. Perhaps he should be replaced.......
In fact he has now caused an issue with some friends regarded the chances of who will be pardoned. I ask you're understanding, and please reconsider - simply do the next right thing........
Hang the bastard who did this from cell B!!!
Warm regards,
Guy in Cell A - where my chances of living thru this are either 50 / 50 or 2/3 depending on which drunks you choose to believe!!!
Humbly,
I remain -
The guy hiding in the tunnel
Finally - can you believe that Pere Carroll didn't hand the ball off??!!?!!
Maybe he should be hung???
I understand your grief and no words may relieve the pain you are enduring.
Please do not make a rash decision about killing us. If you choose to pardon one, it may still be the killer and you have accomplished nothing. He will probably kill again!!
The arse in cell B has confessed to both myself and the gent in cell C. Would not it be a better tribute to your son to get the right guy!?!
Evidence of his deceitful nature is the tunnel he masterminded in an attempt to escape. His efforts only manifested in digging a tunnel between cell A and B to date, however. This is additional evidence of his misanthropic behaviors.
Also, your warden has a big mouth - while he would not tell me who was to be pardoned, he did state the gent in cell C would not be pardoned. In my way of thinking, he skirted your orders not to tell anyone who would be pardoned. Perhaps he should be replaced.......
In fact he has now caused an issue with some friends regarded the chances of who will be pardoned. I ask you're understanding, and please reconsider - simply do the next right thing........
Hang the bastard who did this from cell B!!!
Warm regards,
Guy in Cell A - where my chances of living thru this are either 50 / 50 or 2/3 depending on which drunks you choose to believe!!!
Humbly,
I remain -
The guy hiding in the tunnel
Finally - can you believe that Pere Carroll didn't hand the ball off??!!?!!
Maybe he should be hung???
Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: PA
Posts: 12,000
you're missing the point PK - in this scenario, you are NOT choosing from 100 boxes then given the option to change your pick,
you are choosing from only two boxes... ie -- you were only presented with two boxes. There never was 100 boxes.
If you were given a choice out of 100 then being told, now you can chooses this other one because 98 of the wrong answers were removed, ab-so-lutely change your pick.
you are choosing from only two boxes... ie -- you were only presented with two boxes. There never was 100 boxes.
If you were given a choice out of 100 then being told, now you can chooses this other one because 98 of the wrong answers were removed, ab-so-lutely change your pick.
Adventures In SpaceTime
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 5,827
Originally Posted by awuh1 
Robbie, I'm sorry but I had to ask myself if you are being serious. Think about it. This is not about questions or who is asked those questions. Its about probabilities and about choices. If you are prisoner A, in that specified situation, you have choices, and probable outcomes are involved in those choices. It's equally true that if you are a game show contestant, in that defined situation, that you also have choices and those choices have exactly the same probabilities. This is true regardless of your "perspective" or even what you had for breakfast this morning. Your "perspective" is irrelevant because it is not part of the stated example. The question has not been asked of you, it is being asked about individuals in the specific examples given. Neither your perspective nor mine changes those percentages.
Regarding the prisoners changing places before the question was posed to the warden. This again attempts to change the basic parameters of the situation specified in the story. I addressed this on the first page of this thread. You seem to be sort of argumentative Robbie. Perhaps someone else will address some of your future points in a way that is more satisfactory to you
Regarding the prisoners changing places before the question was posed to the warden. This again attempts to change the basic parameters of the situation specified in the story. I addressed this on the first page of this thread. You seem to be sort of argumentative Robbie. Perhaps someone else will address some of your future points in a way that is more satisfactory to you
Having said that, its really a simple 50-50 choice thereafter. Your prisoner parameters are entirely different then what is given with the multiple opportunities of choices inherent in the Monty Hall problem.
Okay, I admit to having some fun with my perspective, no problem, as some others here have too with their own humorous takes.
It's just that I can't take the question as entirely serious as you'd like me to because I don't agree with the parameters your stating as the Monty Hall problem being an analogy to your prisoner problem. I do agree with LBrain's take, (edit:and with JeffreyAK's take) and he is being on point serious. Sorry my disagreement isn't as humorous or as serious as you seem to want. In any case, thanks for the thread awuh.
Adventures In SpaceTime
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 5,827
Originally Posted by silentrun
You are getting distracted by details that have nothing to do with the problem. The survivor was chosen at random so guilt or innocence has nothing to do with it. The warden knows who will survive so him revealing the ones to die is not random. Having "information" on a cell not chosen at random does not alter the math from 66% die to 50% die. It's just information.
Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,183
There's really no way around the table of outcomes I posted earlier, it's 50/50. The problem might have been worded differently to give a different result, but as worded it's 50/50. The same sort of table for the Monty Hall problem does show that you're better off switching. The details of the problem matter.
The reason it's 50/50 and is not a Monty Hall problem is, the king has already decided C won't be pardoned, and prisoner A is not given a choice of switching with C, only with B. That means row three of the Monty Hall table is not possible. A modified Monty Hall problem without that row also generates a 50/50 chance of goat or car.
The reason it's 50/50 and is not a Monty Hall problem is, the king has already decided C won't be pardoned, and prisoner A is not given a choice of switching with C, only with B. That means row three of the Monty Hall table is not possible. A modified Monty Hall problem without that row also generates a 50/50 chance of goat or car.
Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Nutmegger
Posts: 1,799
On page 30 of this paper alludes to that very point, the prisoner problem is not a pure Monty Hall problem due to the wording. The distinction lies in a conditional problem versus an unconditional problem.
There is also a very interesting discussion about the emotional provocation this caused within the math/stats
community.http://faculty.winthrop.edu/abernath...%20Problem.pdf
There is also a very interesting discussion about the emotional provocation this caused within the math/stats
community.http://faculty.winthrop.edu/abernath...%20Problem.pdf
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Deep South
Posts: 14,636
I also found dwtbd's reply amusing
Ok... so now for poll time!!! Let's arrange a poll so that we plug in our answers and then run some numbers to see which Meyers Briggs Types voted which way, lmao! Just kidding.
Ok... so now for poll time!!! Let's arrange a poll so that we plug in our answers and then run some numbers to see which Meyers Briggs Types voted which way, lmao! Just kidding.
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Deep South
Posts: 14,636
Originally Posted by JeffreyAK
The reason it's 50/50 and is not a Monty Hall problem is, the king has already decided C won't be pardoned.
That, and the fact A was placed into the cell.
Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 25,826
Originally Posted by LBrain
you're missing the point PK - in this scenario, you are NOT choosing from 100 boxes then given the option to change your pick,
you are choosing from only two boxes... ie -- you were only presented with two boxes. There never was 100 boxes.
If you were given a choice out of 100 then being told, now you can chooses this other one because 98 of the wrong answers were removed, ab-so-lutely change your pick.
you are choosing from only two boxes... ie -- you were only presented with two boxes. There never was 100 boxes.
If you were given a choice out of 100 then being told, now you can chooses this other one because 98 of the wrong answers were removed, ab-so-lutely change your pick.
-Prisoner A is pardoned - 1/3
-Prisoner B is pardoned - 1/3
-Prisoner C is pardoned - 1/3
Prior to the information being divulged there was 3 ways it could have gone, after the information was given we then have:
-Prisoner A is pardoned - 1/2
-Prisoner B is pardoned - 1/2
That increase in probability just like my box analogy still warrants a switch on the same principle/calculation as if we were dealing with 100 boxes!!
It's getting heavy for a friday!!
Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Washington, MO
Posts: 2,306
And if A were wacked first it would have been 1:1 (even if he had moved to B and B was chosen first). I still contend that until a body hits the floor, his odds stay at 1:3 of living and 2:3 of dying.
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NC
Posts: 1,462
Actually, with the 100 box puzzle, there's 1/100 chance your box is correct, and a 99/100 chance it's under the other 99. Remove 98 incorrect boxes, the probability for your box is still 1/100, because you picked it 'before' the 98 were removed. You should switch to the other box because it still has 99/100 chance of having the check.
To make it similar to the prisoner puzzle, if you were to start with 100 boxes and first remove 98 boxes(leaving 2), and then you were allowed to choose from the remaining 2, it would be 50/50 and wouldn't matter. So he has the same odds either way, doesn't matter if he switches or not.
To make it similar to the prisoner puzzle, if you were to start with 100 boxes and first remove 98 boxes(leaving 2), and then you were allowed to choose from the remaining 2, it would be 50/50 and wouldn't matter. So he has the same odds either way, doesn't matter if he switches or not.
Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: PA
Posts: 12,000
If this had been a couple years ago and I was going over schematics and relay logic diagrams (working with the big brains) - and there was a real stake in being wrong - I would continue to defend my position as I have done in the past with 10s of millions of dollars on the line over a single error/wrong assumption. I have spent many a time on high level 'critical' tasks as either part of the original decision team or as part of the independent review team. There was always an independent review for critical decisions. If both teams disagreed it went to an off site independent review/consult team (the really big brains). Or the more expensive brains at least.
So for now I'll just say thanks for the exercise awuh. Enjoy your weekends all.
So for now I'll just say thanks for the exercise awuh. Enjoy your weekends all.
Sober Alcoholic
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,539
Thanks everyone. I must confess that this thread has generated a level of interest which I did not foresee. My intention was to generate a discussion that might lead people to examine how they reach conclusions and examine evidence. I did not anticipate that it would lead me to do so much of this myself and that's good.
Unfortunately time has not allowed me fully consider (let alone respond to) everyone's concerns, particularly in regard to the equivalence of my prisoner example and the Monte Hall problem. I don't have much of an investment in my particular version. My only aim in inventing it was to make it a little harder to google a quick answer. Some of these equivalence concerns seem more valid than others, and yet again I am forced to consider that things may not be as they seem. But I guess that was the point in the first place.
Don't forget why we are here. There are folks out there who need our help.
and that's good. Unfortunately time has not allowed me fully consider (let alone respond to) everyone's concerns, particularly in regard to the equivalence of my prisoner example and the Monte Hall problem. I don't have much of an investment in my particular version. My only aim in inventing it was to make it a little harder to google a quick answer. Some of these equivalence concerns seem more valid than others, and yet again I am forced to consider that things may not be as they seem. But I guess that was the point in the first place.
Don't forget why we are here. There are folks out there who need our help.
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
