October 13th, 2015, 07:34 PM  #11 
Global Moderator Joined: May 2007 Posts: 6,787 Thanks: 708  q=1/2.
Last edited by skipjack; October 14th, 2015 at 01:49 AM. 
October 14th, 2015, 04:09 AM  #12  
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2015 From: Planet Earth Posts: 141 Thanks: 25  Quote:
Use the labels I described before: C, R, and L. Then:
The conditional probability that the car is behind R, given that Monty opened L, is now: P(Car=ROpen=L) = P(Car=R & Open=L)/[P(Car=c & Open=L)+P(Car=R & Open=L)] = (1/3)/[(Q/3+1/3) = 1/(1+Q). Similarly, P(Car=LOpen=R) = 1/[1+(1Q)] = 1/(2Q). Now, when we aren't told how to determine Q, we must assume a value to get an answer. And the only value e can assume is Q=1/2, because we can't assume he favors R over L or L over R. Note that P(Car=ROpen=L)=P(Car=LOpen=R)=2/3 in this case. Assumed to be, yes. But I fear we have lost our original questioner. Last edited by JeffJo; October 14th, 2015 at 04:11 AM.  
October 14th, 2015, 06:07 AM  #13 
Global Moderator Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 20,834 Thanks: 2161 
I did read it, but your explanation calculates that 1/(1 + Q) is the probability that the car is behind R, given that Monty opened L. That's different from your original assertion, which was that your probability of winning by switching is 1/(1 + Q). Both 1/(1 + Q) and 1/(2  Q) are at least 1/2. Hence switching is an optimal policy, regardless of the value of Q, whether that value is known, or which door Monty opens. The contestant can reason as follows: if I never switch, my chance of winning is 1/3, and so if I always switch, my chance of winning is 2/3. This means that calculating conditional probabilities is unnecessary. The contestant is simply uninterested in his conditional chance of winning in a particular game, given the circumstances of that game, as there is no policy better than "always switch". 
October 14th, 2015, 07:45 AM  #14 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,671 Thanks: 2651 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra 
The problem is that we don't know whether Monty has made a choice or not. What we do know is the probability that he made a choice ($\newcommand{\pr}[1]{\Pr\left({#1}\right)} \pr{\text{choice}} = \frac13$) and the probability that we win by switching given that he made a choice ($\pr{\text{Car $\ne$ C  choice}} = 0$). We also know the probability that he didn't make a choice ($\pr{\text{no choice}} = \frac23$) and the probability that we win by switching given that he didn't make a choice ($\pr{\text{Car $\ne$ C  no choice}} = 1$). Thus we have $$ \pr{\text{Car $\ne$ C  choice}} = {\pr{\text{Car $\ne$ C and choice}} \over \pr{\text{choice}}} \implies \pr{\text{Car $\ne$ C and choice}} = \pr{\text{Car $\ne$ C  choice}} \cdot \pr{\text{choice}} = 0 \cdot \tfrac13 = 0 \\ \pr{\text{Car $\ne$ C  no choice}} = {\pr{\text{Car $\ne$ C and no choice}} \over \pr{\text{no choice}}} \implies \pr{\text{Car $\ne$ C and no choice}} = \pr{\text{Car $\ne$ C  no choice}} \cdot \pr{\text{no choice}} = 1 \cdot \tfrac23 = 0 \\[12pt] \pr{\text{Car $\ne$ C }} = \pr{\text{Car $\ne$ C and choice}} + \pr{\text{Car $\ne$ C and no choice}} = 0 + \tfrac23 = \tfrac23 $$ Both are valid approaches, working on different assumptions. JeffJo's unwritten assumption is that we know something about Monty's approach to choosing. The version set out above makes no such assumption. If we happen to know the value of $q$, it makes sense to use it, but without it we are better off focussing on what we know. Of course, it should come as no surprise that the methods agree in the case where we pick $q=\frac12$ because both cases postulate that his actual choice is immaterial, that we gain no information from the choice, that the situation is symmetric. In essence, JeffJo's solution introduces a variable upon which we have no information, so at the point we introduce it we already know what value we will pick for it and that it will be the symmetric solution and that as such any asymmetry in the problem will give us no useful information. 
October 14th, 2015, 09:50 AM  #15  
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2015 From: Planet Earth Posts: 141 Thanks: 25  Quote:
Quote:
The explanations given (if you could switch to two doors, you would, wouldn't you?) are not. They leave out an important factor. Yes, it does average out to the same over the long run, but in a single game  which is what the question is about  it is not the same. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A similar example is that we don't know how the car's door was selected. This is a random variable upon which we have no information. If we ignore it, and use your methods, we would get (using the usual door numbers) P(Car=3)=0 and P(Car=1)=P(Car=2)=1/2. That would change the answer. What we actually do is recognize that this selection is a random variable, that it has three equivalent values, and that outcomes with one of those values are eliminated.  
October 14th, 2015, 05:18 PM  #16  
Global Moderator Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 20,834 Thanks: 2161  Quote:
If you always switch, what you called "an important factor" is not really important, as it never changes your decision to switch. You did  you earlier stated "Since there are twice as many cases left where the car is behind R, than cases where it is behind C, you should switch."  
October 14th, 2015, 06:41 PM  #17 
Math Team Joined: Oct 2011 From: Ottawa Ontario, Canada Posts: 14,597 Thanks: 1038 
This thing is beginning to look/sound like the missing dollar puzzle/joke. Jeff, your replies are beginning to sound like you no longer care about the solution, but more interested in getting the last word. 
October 15th, 2015, 05:06 AM  #18  
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2015 From: Planet Earth Posts: 141 Thanks: 25  Quote:
And note that people who don't think switching matters think the probability that either decision wins is 1/2. That fits your description "Both [conditional probabilities] are at least 1/2." +++++ My point is not that a properlyhandled Q affects your decision to switch. It is that Q's existence is what makes it advantageous to switch. People who think switching can't matter are implicitly assuming P(Open=LCar=C)=P(Open=RCar=C)=1, so "Both 1/(1 + Q) and 1/(2  Q) are at exactly 1/2." My point is they they sense there is something fishy about the argument "you'd switch to both doors, wouldn't you?" even if they do not know what that something fishy is. That something is that the argument reduces a conditional probability to an unconditional probability by ignoring Q. Since it is Q that makes the answer what it is, you need to make them understand it or they won't believe you. I'm less concerned with the last word, than with getting this point across to people who keep explaining the Monty Hall Problem is a way that has an established history of not convincing anybody.  
October 15th, 2015, 05:23 AM  #19  
Math Team Joined: Oct 2011 From: Ottawa Ontario, Canada Posts: 14,597 Thanks: 1038  Quote:
then Go Man Go!!!  
July 22nd, 2016, 09:00 AM  #20 
Newbie Joined: Jul 2016 From: Israel Posts: 2 Thanks: 0  This video explains the monty hall problem I think the best, but, it also has a 3d simulation for downloading in the description for free. This simulation proves this problem once and forever! 

Tags 
explain, hall, monty, problem 
Search tags for this page 
Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Question about the Monty Hall problem  Csukar  Probability and Statistics  10  July 7th, 2015 05:14 AM 
Monty Hall question  daigo  Algebra  10  July 6th, 2012 09:00 AM 
Just launched a Monty Hall problem site  jeremy  New Users  8  August 17th, 2011 08:08 PM 
Question about the Monty Hall problem?  giantsteps  Algebra  1  July 9th, 2009 01:53 AM 