Puzzle (Non poker sorry)

[Sean_in_NJ]

Pffttzz - go reread what the extra credit problem stated and then come back and type (100 times) "I will reread until I understand ... "

Well, according to subsequent posts by Muck and Iron Butt, it appears that I was the only one who was able to discern the actual topic under discussion. To rely on the exact wording of a post, given the grammatical "liberties" we're exposed to on a daily basis here, is a bit optimistic. I suggest you come back and type (100 times) "I need to work on my inductive reasoning skills."

False - being shown a box after you pick (which in no way influences your decision) still gives you a 1 in 3 chance of winning, assuming that the prize is evenly distributed over all 3 boxes.

This statement is still grossly incorrect, regardless of context.

[Loonbat]

False - being shown a box after you pick (which in no way influences your decision) still gives you a 1 in 3 chance of winning, assuming that the prize is evenly distributed over all 3 boxes.

This statement is still grossly incorrect, regardless of context.

You yourself stated I was correct with the following:

"If you switch your selection after being shown one of the non-winners, you will win 2/3 of the time. If you do not switch, you win 1/3 of the time. ...

The rest is obvious and is left to the reader (ie it takes little induction to realize you argued my point for me).

[Loonbat]

Pffttzz - go reread what the extra credit problem stated and then come back and type (100 times) "I will reread until I understand ... "

Well, according to subsequent posts by Muck and Iron Butt, it appears that I was the only one who was able to discern the actual topic under discussion. To rely on the exact wording of a post, given the grammatical "liberties" we're exposed to on a daily basis here, is a bit optimistic. I suggest you come back and type (100 times) "I need to work on my inductive reasoning skills."

Furthermore, I respond to the actual conditions stated and perimeters set, not those that I purport or project, based on my own biases. I prefer sticking to the facts and deduction based on what is presented.

Inductive reasoning is a wonderful skill to have, however ... it showed us the earth was flat, the atom is the smallest divisible unit of matter, and that the sun travels around the Earth.

[Sean_in_NJ]

Furthermore, I respond to the actual conditions stated and perimeters set, not those that I purport or project, based on my own biases. I prefer sticking to the facts and deduction based on what is presented.

Whatever you have to tell yourself, but congratulations nonetheless. You won an argument based on precepts that no one else was using.

[BeerWench13]

To hell with all of that math. Make someone else pick first. Then you have a 50/50 chance unless they choose correctly.

[HalfSugar]

Odds are 1 in 3 no matter what you are shown. The end.

[zeroswarm]

Odds are 1 in 3 no matter what you are shown. The end.

Thank God for that.

[Sean_in_NJ]

Odds are 1 in 3 no matter what you are shown. The end.

No, they're not.

Thank God for that.

Thanks for the stellar contribution, now go put your tin hat back on.

[Loonbat]

I have to agree with Geno - I've seen the picture of him wearing a "Harvard" shirt.