12122222221212


Pick one , 2 is a winner. Your target size is bigger in the middle. Pick anywhere in the middle and you win.

[unsubscribe]

[ignore list + pkdk]

Why are people so ignorant to something that is beyond their understanding?

I had to learn stuff so how come none of you can learn stuff?

I am trying to teach you something, spending my precious time trying to teach you all something new. New means it is not written down anywhere, it is new.


To conclude the new is wrong without even understanding the new is subjective and not objective.

Why not allow yourselves to learn?

At least one poster in this thread isn't playing with a full deck. But I bet you can calculate the probability of him being right.

I have understood everything you’ve said and have rejected it as meaningless, like the past results on a roulette wheel.

Good luck.

No one is misunderstanding you, you're just wrong.

I have 3 doors, behind one of the doors is a prize, behind two of the doors is nothing.


The contestants play the game for several weeks and the results are recorded but disclosed.

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A


Now this week is bonus week , they are going to use 10 doors and use the previous ten results to determine what is behind the ten doors.


Picking one door , What is your chance of a prize?

I know I am being misunderstood because otherwise you would agree I was right. Please play the game show question.

Have you ever considered objectively that maybe you do not understand me ?

You may think you do, but that does not mean you do.


State back in your own words what I am saying if you understand me?

State back in your own words what I am saying if you understand me?

applies to everyone who thinks they understand me.

added- This implies ignorance on your part and not ignorance of myself. I know and understand your version.

It’s 1 out of 3.

You set up a situation where the odds of any individual box being a prize is 1 in 3. So whatever box you pick, the chance will be 1 in 3.

But no, you will claim yet again: it’s ?/10 because we don’t know how many prizes are in the set after the first round. Which is true, but also meaningless. The answer to your question is 1/3 based on the full conditions you set.

Your point is that once a deck, or a thousand decks is shuffled it is no longer random. You’ve given about 50 examples all boiling down to that idea. Yes, I know, not quite. Because your definition of understanding is agreeing that probability doesn’t exist, because eventually the roulette ball ends up in a slot.

You can ask somebody to run your game show test a million times and look for little clusters or whatever, so good luck with that. And now I’m sad.

Try again ,

Each of the ten doors has a 1/3 chance of having a prize behind the door, But how many prizes are behind the ten doors?

Each of the ten doors has a 1/3 chance of having a prize behind the door, But how many prizes are behind the ten doors?

There is no option to pick from 3 doors , you have ten doors in front of you. Your choice is out of ten doors, you can't change the rules to suit in this game show.


I am not offering a choice of 1 prize behind 3 doors am I?

Wrong that is not the point, nothing to do with the randomness. Once you understand you will agree with me, and by me i mean the objectiveness.

Person A is given a choice of three boxes. One of the boxes has a prize. He picks two of the boxes.

Person A then hands those two boxes to Person B and asks him to pick a box.

Your belief is that the chances of person A picking a box with a prize are 2 in 3, but the chances of Person B receiving a prize are unknowable.

Since you don’t see why that’s a problem, there’s an impasse.

.

no again, you don't understand honestly that is not what I am saying.


Person A is given a choice of three boxes. One of the boxes has a prize. He picks one of the boxes. 1/3 chance of a prize

I agree no problem.


The results of this are undisclosed so you do not know if he got a prize or not

this is done several times and the results make a new game B.


Ok with that so far?

I might be wrong here, but I don't think you know what disclosed means.

Person B is given a choice of 10 doors, person B does not know how many prizes are behind the doors.

Do you agree?

It means you cant see them . Undisclosed is when you can see them . Unless I have that backwards.


added- I have been using that backwards sorry, just googled it .

Thanks you taught me something.

?

FYI - “Disclosed” means the opposite of what you think it means. If something is disclosed, then that means it was told to people.

Here's what I believe that you believe.

Even if you know the probability of a random choice from set A, when you do this X number of times to create set B, you don't know the exact composition of set B, so you can't determine the probability of randomly choosing something from set B.

For some reason it wont let me quote your full post,


So, stating this again, you want to say that (i) each of the 10 coins has a 50% chance of being a heads, (ii) the chance to draw from the 10 coins a coin that is a heads is indeterminable and (iii) the chance of a coin that is drawn from the 10 coins being heads is 50%?


It may sound obviously stupid at first but you understand what I said and have given the correct answer.