The role of probability in solving the Monty Hall problem

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Hey Rob, you do realize you could flip a coin and get heads a million times in a row but this doesn't raise your probability of getting heads next time around, right?

[robvalue]

I do realize that, yes. How's the program coming

I haven't done any coding for a while but I could write it if no one else wants to.

[Excited Penguin]

Hey Rob, you do realize you could flip a coin and get heads a million times in a row but this doesn't raise your probability of getting heads next time around, right?

I totally agree with that, which is why I don't trust probability but for when a certain pattern is revealed. You're right, I was basically pressured into agreeing with them. I don't. I do realise that they have the right technical answer but this doesn't take away from the fact that for all they know they could switch and get it wrong to infinity. To assume that you will get it right 2/3 of the time because of switching is to assume that you're going to pick every door just as many times during a certain number of iterations of the same game, which is a ludicrous thing to assume. So again, I think it's misleading to think that probability can solve this problem, no matter what the evidence shows. This is logically inconsistent so the evidence must be pointing to something else entirely even if it does show them right. Wishful thinking = wishful results? I don't know.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Pfffffft.
They don't have the right answer. They have the right mathematical answer. Huge difference.

[robvalue]

I don't know what it is you guys are misunderstanding. Seriously, I don't. So I don't know what to tell you.

The maths is accurate, and a simulation will back it up. You should have no fear of simply trying it out if you think it's plain wrong.

It's been explained several times here, in several different ways.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I do realize that, yes. How's the program coming

I haven't done any coding for a while but I could write it if no one else wants to.

I could effortlessly write a program for that. It won't take me more than 5minutes. But I'll pass

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

And the only reason why the mathematical answer holds is because the mathematical answer involves modifying the question to achieve its answer.

So like..... Whaaaat

[robvalue]

OK.

I think writing the program would actually help you understand the problem better, because you have to work out which door the host opens. It depends on whether you chose right or not initially. He doesn't just pick a random door; he can't pick your door. That is the crucial part. If you ignore that, of course you won't think this works.

What...? Modifying the question? What are you talking about?

I give up.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

OK.

I think writing the program would actually help you understand the problem better, because you have to work out which door the host opens. It depends on whether you chose right or not initially.

What...? Modifying the question? What are you talking about?

I give up.

Let me elaborate rob. Does the question tells you that the host cannot lie? Ummm, no. Does the answer involve assuming the host cannot lie? Yes.

[robvalue]

The host knows where the prize is. The host must open a door so that it doesn't reveal the prize, and isn't your door. There is no lying, how could there be?

You get to see that the door has nothing behind it. Well, you should anyway. That's the point.

EDIT: Yes, the original question in this thread says he opens a door. So you see that there's nothing/ a goat. Where does lying come in?