Wifey Boozer

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

__________________


... Stalin had a FANTASTIC moustache.

Formerly known as the Prime Minister of Spain.

[backintheubbr]

Fyrenza

thats what i get for not watching tv

right you are UnFan

want another one?

The Unfan

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

Wifey Boozer

You have one post.

__________________


... Stalin had a FANTASTIC moustache.

Formerly known as the Prime Minister of Spain.

[backintheubbr]

RUPERT

that doesn't make me any less of a person



Will you help me to understand?

Fyrenza

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.

cardboard adolescent

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.

cardboard adolescent

/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

Fyrenza

ok mr smarty pants

it was a paradoxical puzzle

are we happy now?

The Unfan

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