[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ]

You're a contestant on a game show. There are infinity doors

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

You're a contestant on a game show.
There are infinity doors in front of you, behind just one of those doors is a sports car.

You choose a door and the gameshow host opens infinity-1 doors, leaving behind just two doors - one that doesn't have the car behind it and one that does.

You've probably heard this question before so I'm not going to ask if you would stick or switch. However, is the chance of the car being behind the door you didn't choose literally 100%?
>>
Yes because 0.9999...=1
>>
well you said that host opens two doors and one of them has the car behind it. So you would switch, and have a 50% shot of getting the car. Plus you can't just do infinity-1. instead use n-1.
>>
>>7648976
nvm I thought he kept 2 doors closed. If there are total 2 doors lefts then yeah .9999999999999999999999999999999999 not 1 tho. That would be false.
>>
>>7648965
This is a prime example of the clash between statistics (which operate on the assume that all variable are known and the world is perfect) and human heuristics we tend to rely on while making predictions.

There very well could be patterns in what door the car ends up behind, that you aren't aware of. Your intuition could be correct. There are myriad at work beyond what the host tells you, so blindly switching to "increase muh odds" isn't something I'm fond of.

In truth I would likely view it as little above random odds and side with intuition. Whether that meant switching or not, depends.
>>
>>7648978
But, according to geometric summation, .999999.... is one.
>>
>>7648965
literally a 50% chance
just swich senpai, it dont matter
>>
You would almost surely win the car.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely
>>
Infinity is not a countable set, so the question is flawed; operations like infinity - 1 are not meaningful.

That being said, for games with large n you 100% should switch, because the odds you picked the correct random natural number are 1/n, which approaches zero as n approaches infinity.
>>
>>7648993
ofc its meaningsful, infinity + 1 is bigger than just one infinity. And a infinity can have different sizes. For example: Between 1 and 2 are there endless of numbers, but between 1 and 100, it is even more numbers but also infinitely.
>>
You have a probability 1 of winning, but there is still a posibilty of losing. In statisrics, this is called 'almost surely.'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely
>>
>>7649109

They're actually the same number.
>>
>>7648985
Wrong. The Monty Hall problem is never a 50/50 choice to switch no matter how many doors you add.
>>
>>7649109
You misunderstand infinities. Leave.
>>
>>7648985

nice bate
>>
>>7649197
Either your stupid, or you're post is bait aswell.
>>
>>7648965
Well the first door has a ~0% chance (0.0...1%) so yeah,

>>7648973
>Yes because 0.9999...=1

Technically it's a 99.9999...% chance. Not 100% but MIGHT as well be.
>>
>>7649217
>your
>you're
Almost fell for it
>>
File: sick.jpg (950KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
950KB, 1920x1080px
>>7648965
you're a sick fuck
>>
>>7648965
yeah, it's 100%, assuming you can manage infinity doors to begin with

>>7649131
it's 50/50 if you start with two doors, since the host can't open any doors.
>>
>>7649390
If you start with two doors, then the host can't open any doors and you don't have the Monty Hall problem
>>
>>7648965

>infinity-1

dafuq outta here son