|
Post by Jason Thompson on May 31, 2007 5:10:47 GMT -4
I don't feel like you've explained this satisfactorily. No explanation will satisfy you, because you are determined to cling on to your hoax belief no matter what, despite your professed ignorance of the science required to draw defensible conclusions on the matter. And you still don't understand why that is perfectly acceptable, do you? I'd bet they filmed it on the Moon and you just don't know enough about the relevant science to make your expectations about what you should see valid. No, it's wild speculation on your part. And yet you won't accept any of our expert explanations. We have, numerous times. If you're too stubborn to accept that your whole expectation may be flawed in the first place, no amount of explanation is going to help, is it? There are people with science backgrounds answering you in this thread, but you still refuse point-blank to listen to anything we're saying to you. Anyone with a science background lurking on this thread will see some patient explanations that are verifiable by their own research, and some wild theories by a man who admits he has nothing more than the most basic understanding of science. Who are they going to find more credible? (Hint: it ain't you.)
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 31, 2007 5:20:07 GMT -4
Heck, I'm not a scientist, and I believe you folks far more than I would anything David tried to convince me of. David, if you told me the sky is blue, I'd look out my window. (Especially given that it's 2:16 AM my time, and the sky is currently black.) Then again, you'd've gotten the information from YouTube anyway.
|
|
|
Post by petereldergill on May 31, 2007 8:39:27 GMT -4
I’ve thought about this question before and I think the odds depends on whether Monty acted randomly or if he knows where the prize is and purposely opens a door behind which there is no prize. The problem does not make it clear which case is applicable, though I suppose the latter is implied.
Yes, Monty Hall knows where the prize is. I tried to explain the problem to my class once using conditional probability but got lost...it's a fairly complicated question. The best explanation I've heard is the "Ace of spades" argument (or something similar)
The idea is that you've been given more information, which changes the odds to 2/3 if you switch. I suppose this game could be modelled using a computer, but I wouldn't have the foggiest notion of how to do that. It seems like it would be simple to program, but I don't know how. Perhaps someone here can?
Pete
|
|
|
Post by BertL on May 31, 2007 9:19:17 GMT -4
(Especially given that it's 2:16 AM my time, and the sky is currently black.) A-HA! There you've got it! The Apollogists try to explain away the lack of stars on photographs by saying the sky itself is black! SHAME ON YOU! EVERYONE BELIEVE ME PLEASE! Edit: Not meant in an offensive way. Just good natured satire.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on May 31, 2007 9:26:04 GMT -4
I’ve thought about this question before and I think the odds depends on whether Monty acted randomly or if he knows where the prize is and purposely opens a door behind which there is no prize. The problem does not make it clear which case is applicable, though I suppose the latter is implied.
Yes, Monty Hall knows where the prize is. I tried to explain the problem to my class once using conditional probability but got lost...it's a fairly complicated question. The best explanation I've heard is the "Ace of spades" argument (or something similar) The idea is that you've been given more information, which changes the odds to 2/3 if you switch. I suppose this game could be modelled using a computer, but I wouldn't have the foggiest notion of how to do that. It seems like it would be simple to program, but I don't know how. Perhaps someone here can? Pete Well, borrowing from an example Ian Stewart gave on the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures once, imagine Monty offered you ten doors instead of three. Once you've made your pick, he opens the doors of eight empty cabinets, leaving your pick and one other... The "Ace of Spades" formulation would be that you have to pick out the Ace of spades from a pack of cards. You pick a card blind and place it on the table face-down without looking at it. Monty then looks through the pack, selects a card and puts that down next to yours, offering you the chance to change your pick for the one he selected. Essentially the bet is "did you pick the Ace first time, or was it still in the pack?"
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 31, 2007 9:34:10 GMT -4
In the Monty Hall problem, he always opens a door that with no prize, indicating foreknowledge of where the prize is. This gives the player no more useful information than he had before the door was opened because he already knew one of the two doors had no prize.
One of the better ways to explain this to people who don't understand the math is to make it 100 doors with one prize. The player selects one door and Monty opens 98 other doors leaving the selected door and one other. Many people grasp the concept at that point. You could even make it a million doors. Or it can be shown with a simple demonstration.
For certain crowds, there is the Cheech and Chong presentation of the problem.
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on May 31, 2007 9:52:01 GMT -4
The idea is that you've been given more information, which changes the odds to 2/3 if you switch. I suppose this game could be modelled using a computer, but I wouldn't have the foggiest notion of how to do that. It seems like it would be simple to program, but I don't know how. Perhaps someone here can? Pete You can play it online here:- math.ucsd.edu/~crypto/Monty/monty.htmlThe stats show that people who switched were winners 66.9% of the time. Those who didn't switch only won 34.1% of the time. For the record, the first three times I played, I switched and lost. Curse you, Monty!
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on May 31, 2007 9:57:40 GMT -4
I'd volunteer for that. My repertoire covers Teesside (and various sub-dialects), Hey, I just noticed U are in redcar, I am up the hill in Guisborough! Now then CaptainSwoop! Guisborough is my birthplace, and a rather nice night out too. Small world indeed.
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on May 31, 2007 10:00:19 GMT -4
A favourite of mine for demonstrating that common sense does not always lead you down the path to truth is this simple optical illusion. Believe it or not, squares A and B are exactly the same shade of grey.
|
|
|
Post by petereldergill on May 31, 2007 10:03:29 GMT -4
I've just brought that down to 66%....2 losses with switching!! Just won one!
Pete
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on May 31, 2007 10:36:21 GMT -4
:smack:
After all these years, now I understand! Monty knows where the prize is! Am I an idiot!
Now that that's out of the way, how about explaining the Infield Fly Rule?
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on May 31, 2007 11:34:07 GMT -4
Hey, I just noticed U are in redcar, I am up the hill in Guisborough! Now then CaptainSwoop! Guisborough is my birthplace, and a rather nice night out too. Small world indeed. I am a Tap and Spile man myself it's funny tho, I go to redcar for a friday night out lol
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on May 31, 2007 11:38:03 GMT -4
A favourite of mine for demonstrating that common sense does not always lead you down the path to truth is this simple optical illusion. Believe it or not, squares A and B are exactly the same shade of grey. No, actually, I don't believe it. Can you provide a reference to this?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 31, 2007 11:58:08 GMT -4
The Gimp reports that A and B are both approximately 47% gray, within a fraction of a percent. This is actually an example of a well-known exercise in contextual perception, one that appears all the time in photographic interpretation textbooks.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on May 31, 2007 12:00:27 GMT -4
Believe it or not, squares A and B are exactly the same shade of grey. No, actually, I don't believe it. Can you provide a reference to this? Upon inspection in Photoshop, both squares use the colour code #787878. Here are the two squares, isolated so you can't see the rest of the illusion:
|
|