Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userMonty Hall problem revisited once more
70
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
The Monty Hal problem is an attractive puzzle. It combines simple statement with answers that seem surprising to most audiences. The problem was thoroughly solved over two decades ago. Yet, more recent discussions indicate that the solution is incompletely understood. Here, we review the solution and discuss pitfalls and other aspects that make the problem interesting.
rate research
Read More
The Monty Hall problem is the TV game scenario where you, the contestant, are presented with three doors, with a car hidden behind one and goats hidden behind the other two. After you select a door, the host (Monty Hall) opens a second door to reveal a goat. You are then invited to stay with your original choice of door, or to switch to the remaining unopened door, and claim whatever you find behind it. Assuming your objective is to win the car, is your best strategy to stay or switch, or does it not matter? Jason Rosenhouse has provided the definitive analysis of this game, along with several intriguing variations, and discusses some of its psychological and philosophical implications. This extended review examines several themes from the book in some detail from a Bayesian perspective, and points out one apparently inadvertent error.
The rational solution of the Monty Hall problem unsettles many people. Most people, including the authors, think it feels wrong to switch the initial choice of one of the three doors, despite having fully accepted the mathematical proof for its superiority. Many people, if given the choice to switch, think the chances are fifty-fifty between their options, but still strongly prefer to stay with their initial choice. Is there some sense behind these irrational feelings? We entertain the possibility that intuition solves the problem of how to behave in a real game show, not in the abstract textbook version of the Monty Hall problem. A real showmaster sometimes plays evil, either to make the show more interesting, to save money, or because he is in a bad mood. A moody showmaster erases any information advantage the guest could extract by him opening other doors which drives the chance of the car being behind the chosen door towards fifty percent. Furthermore, the showmaster could try to read or manipulate the guests strategy to the guests disadvantage. Given this, the preference to stay with the initial choice turns out to be a very rational defense strategy of the shows guest against the threat of being manipulated by its host. Thus, the intuitive feelings most people have about the Monty Hall problem coincide with what would be a rational strategy for a real-world game show. Although these investigations are mainly intended to be an entertaining mathematical commentary on an information-theoretic puzzle, they touch on interesting psychological questions.
Equivalence between algebraic structures generated by parastatisticstriple relations of Green (1953) and Greenberg -- Messiah (1965), and certain orthosymplectic $mathbb{Z}_2times mathbb{Z}_2$-graded Lie superalgebras is found explicitly. Moreover, it is shown that such superalgebras give more complex para-Fermi and para-Bose systems then ones of Green -- Greenberg -- Messiah.
We comment on the recently reiterated claim that the contribution of the W-boson loop to the Higgs boson decay into two photons leads to different expressions in the $R_xi$ gauge and the unitary gauge. By applying a gauge-symmetry preserving regularization with higher-order covariant derivatives we reproduce once again the classical gauge-independent result.
What initial trajectory angle maximizes the arc length of an ideal projectile? We show the optimal angle, which depends neither on the initial speed nor on the acceleration of gravity, is the solution x to a surprising transcendental equation: csc(x) = coth(csc(x)), i.e., x = arccsc(y) where y is the unique positive fixed point of coth. Numerically, $x approx 0.9855 approx 56.47^circ$. The derivation involves a nice application of differentiation under the integral sign.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
