A Paradox to Solve
 

i thought everyone might enjoy trying their hands at solving a paradox:

Goats!!!

well

horses are actually valuable :rofl:

I could certainly find more use for a goat: Milk, cheese and meat. BTW never change your choice.

Switching improves the odds of winning. Let us assume you pick box 1. The number of the box you picked doesn't matter but it helps explain the reasoning. If you pick another box just swap 1 with the number you chose and you'd get the same result.

If the car is indeed box number 1 than you could reveal either 2 or 3. However if the car is in 2 you have to reveal 3 and if the car is in 3 you have to reveal 2. 2 out of 3 times you had to reveal a specific box, and in those cases the switch is the win. 2 out 3 times you should switch.

no advantage



thread locked

I also read Bringing Down The House & seen 21 ;) :clap:

THIS IS RIDICULOUS!

OK, SO YOU HAVE 3 BOXES ON A TABLE.

TWO BOXES CONTAIN VOUCHERS FOR DOG****, ONE BOX CONTAINS A VOUCHER FOR A MEDIEVAL CASTLE. (OBVIOUSLY YOU WANT THE FRICKIN MEDIEVAL CASTLE).

SO YOU PICK A BOX AT RANDOM AND YOU CLUTCH IT TIGHTLY TO YOUR CHEST.

YOU ARE THEN GIVEN THE OPTION TO OPEN UP ONE OF THE 2 BOXES ON THE TABLE, (THE TWO THAT YOU DIDN'T PICK), AND SEE WHAT'S INSIDE.

OOH. WELL WHADD'YA KNOW, IT'S A VOUCHER FOR DOG****.

SO NOW YOU'RE LEFT WTH JUST 2 UNOPENED BOXES. ONE UNOPENED BOX IS STILL ON THE TABLE AND ONE UNOPENED BOX IS BEING TIGHTLY CLUTCHED TO YOUR CHEST.

ONE OF THESE BOXES CONTAINS THE CASTLE VOUCHER, AND THE OTHER CONTAINS THE DOG**** VOUCHER.


...HOW CAN THE ODDS OF PICKING THE MEDIEVAL CASTLE BOX BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN 1-IN-2, REGARDLESS OF ANY LAST MINUTE SWITCH??



a

Also for a strictly mathematical way to view it. When you pick the door at the start you have a 1/3 chance of being correct. Revealing one of the goats doesn't change the fact that you had a 2/3 chance of being wrong initially and therefore you still have a 2/3 chance of being correct by switching. The information doesn't change the odds.

Please admit that analogy is from 21 and I will be psychologically sound for the night.

Its simple math. I have seen 21 but I've known the answer to this question since around 5th grade.

thats what i get for not watching tv :yikes:

right you are UnFan

want another one?

Can you tell me where I'm going wrong please

You have one post.

that doesn't make me any less of a person



Will you help me to understand?

by switching you double the probability of finding the car voucher from 1/3 to 2/3. Switching is only not advantageous if you initially choose the 'right' box, which happens with probability 1/3.

With probability 1/3, you initially choose one of two 'wrong' boxes; when the other 'wrong' box is opened, switching yields the 'right' box with more certainty. The total probability of winning when switching is thus 2/3.

Ok, when you know nothing about the situation each box has a 1/3 chance of containing what you want.

So, to start, it looks like this: 1/3, 1/3, 1/3
then you pick a box, so now you have 1/3 chance of having it right, 2/3 that it's one of the other boxes.

when you reveal what's inside of one of the other boxes, there's still a 2/3 chance that you made the wrong decision, but now that entire 2/3 rests on the box that hasn't been eliminated, since you know it can't be the other one. so now your odds are 1/3 that you have the right box, and 2/3 that it's the other one. so you should switch.

/redundancy

that's not really a paradox anyway, here's a fun paradox:

consider a set of all sets which do not contain themselves as a member. would this set contain itself?

or

the next statement is true:
the previous statement is false

ok mr smarty pants :p:

it was a paradoxical puzzle

are we happy now? :rofl:

If this sentence is true then Santa Clause is real.

THAT's a paradox.

Santa Claus IS real.

Everyone knows that.




















...stupid.

Hahaha. :D

dont you be HaHaHa-ing about santie :nono:

HES REAL!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Jesus is real.................

So were his groupies.

This puzzle is stupid. You will be able to clearly tell in which box the car is in the first place. Or you got some massive fuckin' goats in there.

As much as our mutual dislike goes, and despite we think eachother are pricks - you're a funny mother****er.

This isn't really a paradox either unless you clause the first statement to make itself true. It just means that the first sentence is calling itself false.

The next statement is true
v
The previous statement is alse
=
This statement of the next line's truthfulness is false
v
The previous line's statement of falseness is false

what?

if the first sentence is calling itself false that means that the next statement is not true, but false, which would mean that the statement "the previous statement is false" is false, so the first statement is true, which contradicts the first claim you just made. how are you saying this isn't a paradox?

Because the second statement could just be pointing out that the falseness of the first statement is actually false.

let me set it up less ambiguously (because i don't get what you're saying)

a = b (or, a is b is true)
b = ~a (or, b is a is false)
the question is, a->b? (does a give you b?)
if yes, a -> b and so through substitution a->~a, which is contradictory
if no, a -> ~b, substituting a this time you get b->~b, which is also contradictory

a simpler expression of the same paradox would simply be:

this statement is false