how long does it take to recover from public humiliation ?

>>9053943
How math can show flaws in our common sense is pretty cool

>>9053943
You are a biologist traveling in the rainforest when you are bitten by a venomous snake. Luckily you know that the female of a certain species of frog native to this rainforest secretes the antidote to this venom on its back. You also know that only the males of this species croak. You see one such frog in front of you sitting silently. At the same time, you hear a male croak behind you and turn around to see two frogs of the species. You only have enough time to run to the lone frog you first saw or the pair of frogs behind you and lick their backs before the venom incapacitates you. Which do you run to and why?

>>9053943
what kind of faggot starts an argument about basic math with "well I have a phd and..."

Like, why did these insufferable morons even volunteer the information that they had phds

people like that are why normies don't respect academics

File: goat.jpg (144KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1024x768px

Too bad the goat is better

>>9054002
I've heard this problem multiple times. I would say the answer is it doesn't matter, because all of the frogs are independent of each other, so the single frog is 50% M or F, and the other group has one male and one other frog which is 50/50. However, I've seen some answers saying that it does matter. what's the explanation for your choice mattering?

>>9054067
Your conclusion is correct but your reasoning is wrong. You're missing something.

>>9054070
What is the proper reasoning? I can't think of any other factors.

>>9054002
what does it mean that we saw the one sitting silently?

might it be male, and we just so happened to not hear it croak yet? what is the probability of that?

>>9054080
I believe the one we see sitting silently means that we haven't heard a croak, so it could be male or female. also, assume for all frogs that it is 50/50 male or female unless it has croaked, which proves it is male.

>>9054002
The two frogs have a better probability than the one frog.
One frog has two possible states: 50% male, 50% female
Two frogs has three possible states: 50% male + female, 25% two females, 25% two males
Hearing a croak excludes the possibility of two females, which changes the probability distribution to 66% male + female, and 33% two males.

File: Grothendieckportra_3107171c.jpg (23KB, 460x536px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 460x536px

>>9053943
what if the goat is your goal

>>9054106
That doesn't make sense. the chances are 25 MM, 25 FF, and 50 MF. Even though you know that it isn't FF, when the frogs first appeared, these were the odds. even though now you know it isn't FF, it was still an option at first, so the odds don't change

>>9054110

Trivial inversion of the problem which upon inspection presents no new information. The real intent of the problem is to go for the more desirable thing in such-and-such a way.

>>9054080
Good questions, you're getting warm.

>>9054106
The states are not simply male and female. You have:

1. M croak, M no croak
2. M croak, F no croak

Are these states equally likely? Figure it out.

>>9054116
Of course the information that FF is impossible changes the odds. You can't have 25% chance of MM, 50% MF, and 0% FF. They have to total 100%. However, none of you have fully described all the information available, which leads you to the wrong answer.

File: 1479933969135.png (45KB, 778x512px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 778x512px

>>9053943
giv highiq gf

File: 1500582565215s.jpg (7KB, 245x250px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 245x250px

>>9054157
here apu

>>9053943
contestants do not improve or lower their chance of winning the car by switching doors, unless you make the non-standard assumptions about the game host

anything saying otherwise is just logic foolery

>>9054002
I haven't taken a course on probabilities yet but the lone frog seems best. That frog has a 0.5 p of being the right one. On the other hand, given a random frog you have a .25 p since first of all you have to pick the one that didn't croak (0.5) and then if you got it right there is only a 0.5 chance of the other one being a female. Obviously going with the lone frog is better.

File: 1481354070113.jpg (263KB, 764x551px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 764x551px

>>9054168
first you pick a door at random. There is 1/3 chance a car is behind that door. Then goat is revealed. Now you switch. 1/3 times you will lose, since car was behind the door you chose first. But 2/3 times, it wasn't. So you win.

>>9054172
>That frog has a 0.5 p of being the right one.
Sorry but that's impossible. I told you that females don't croak while we already know males at least sometimes croak, so how can you say a frog which you didn't hear croak is equally likely to be male or female? If I told you males never give birth and then I told you my friend has not given birth yet, that tells you my friend is more likely to be male, as no possible male friend would have given birth by now while at least some possible female friend would have. Get it?

>On the other hand, given a random frog you have a .25 p since first of all you have to pick the one that didn't croak (0.5) and then if you got it right there is only a 0.5 chance of the other one being a female
I said you can run to the pair and lick their backs you don't choose between them.

File: IMG_20170722_002516.jpg (497KB, 1152x1920px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 1152x1920px

I bet Helene used this to justify always betraying everyone

>>9054182
Fuck off already, your incoherent rambling is pathetic.

File: 1499735721180.png (46KB, 778x512px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 778x512px

>>9054167
is her iq 228? I wan 228iq gf

>>9054179
>Get it?
Sure I get it, but that information is useful only if you know the average rate of croaking. Say if a male frog croaks on average once every 20 seconds sure that will weight the probability toward being a female if it hasn't croaked, but it's meaningless without knowing that. What if they only croak a few times a day, completely at random?
It's the same with your friend, your statement is only valid if I know your friend's age, then I can calculate the probability that a female of age n has already given birth, which obviously increases as n increases. But without knowing that, I would need either your age and the distribution curve of the ages of the friends of an n years old person. This would make the calculation less accurate, because I would have a probability of your friend being of a certain age, and the probability of a woman that age having given birth.

>I said you can run to the pair and lick their backs you don't choose between them.
Right, so you can

>>9054173
logic foolery
1/3 chance you pick the correct door out of three doors
1/2 chance you pick the correct door out of two doors

there is nothing changing the odds you pick the right door the second time based upon what you picked the first time. they're unrelated.

>>9054198
hasn't anyone modeled this on matlab or python or something?

>>9054070
Why is his conclusion correct? The lone frog has a 50/50 chance of being male.

In the pair of frogs, we are faced with two options:

F/M pair: 50% chance of licking the male

M/M pair: 100% chance of licking the male

Both events are equally likely, so that gives us a 75% of being successful with the pair of frogs

File: 5c1f369c71a237d963621b632c92bd6e.jpg (97KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1280x720px

>>9054198
>>9054200
http://fiftyexamples.readthedocs.io/en/latest/monty-hall.html

>Switching won 6639 times out of 10000 (66.39% of the time)
>Not switching won 3357 times out of 10000 (33.57% of the time)

NON SWITCHERS BTFO
ENJOY YOUR GOATS

>>9054195
>Sure I get it, but that information is useful only if you know the average rate of croaking.
Oh? Because the question did not ask for the specific probability. It simply asks which is better and why. You can compare them while keeping the chance of a male croaking while you were listening as a variable.

>>9054204
Well in the end without any extra data both choices are the same, because the extra frog might as well be an exact copy of the lonesome frog. Without any other knowledge all you can compare is the time they've gone without croaking and it's the same for both.
The only thing I could argue against going for the two frogs, is that you don't know if the non-croaking frog just got there from somewhere else where you couldn't have heard it croak, while you know for sure the one in front of you hasn't croaked.

File: 1500696757216.png (47KB, 778x512px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 778x512px

>>9054185
yes
pls no buli

>>9054201
>Why is his conclusion correct? The lone frog has a 50/50 chance of being male.
No. See >>9054179

>In the pair of frogs, we are faced with two options:
>F/M pair: 50% chance of licking the male
>M/M pair: 100% chance of licking the male
>Both events are equally likely, so that gives us a 75% of being successful with the pair of frogs
Also incorrect. There are two states which are NOT equally likely:

1. M croak, M no croak
2. M croak, F no croak

Also, you want to lick the female, not the male.

Also, if the chance of male/female was 50/50 (i.e. we inappropriately ignore the croaking) MF would still be twice a lively as MM. You just made every mistake you could make.

>>9054209
You got it wrong. The rate of croacking may change the probabilities, but still one will be even marginally higher than the other.

>>9054209
>Well in the end without any extra data both choices are the same, because the extra frog might as well be an exact copy of the lonesome frog.
Yes that's the correct answer. You see, I purposefully worded this problem in order to fool both probability novices and people familiar with similar sounding problems (specifically the boy girl problem). The answer is intuitive, but not for an intuitive reason.

>>9054223
Explain.

>>9054002
From a biologist's point of view the answer is to check for sexual dimorphism, as frogs always have very noticeable differences between males and females. Males in particular tend to be very brightly colored, but as long as the frogs behind you are noticeably different from one another then go and lick those.

>>9054229
Both frogs go on for the same time wothout croaking. Since they both don't croak, it doesn't really matter. If one was to come later, that would be an entirely different problem.

>>9054230
This is a very rare species which has no visual dimorphism from the distance you are at. Croaking is also not associated with attracting females or threatening other males. As a biologist you know all this, which is why nothing to the contrary is stated in the problem.

>>9054232
Yes, that's what the guy you replied to said. What did you mean by "but still one will be even marginally higher than the other."?

>>9054234
Neat. If I survive I'll have a paper published in Nature after discovering a frog like that.

>>9054237
Misread the problem. I thought the croaking frog was the desirable one. At this point, if you were to introduce either frog earlier, the pair would still give you the best chance of survival.

>>9054179
>You see one such frog in front of you sitting silently. At the same time, you hear a male croak...

You didnt read the problem closely enough. The information provided states you observe them at the same time.
Thus your phrasing of "didnt hear croak" is an incorrect statement.

>>9054198
https://youtu.be/o_djTy3G0pg

>>9054241
No the pair gives you the exact same chance of survival. Specifically it's 1/(2-x) where x is the chance of a male frog croaking.

Also it seems silly to assume a frog was so far away that you couldn't hear it croaking and then suddenly hops up behind you.

>>9054247
>You didnt read the problem closely enough.
Considering I wrote the problem with exactly that wording in mind, I doubt it.

>The information provided states you observe them at the same time.
>Thus your phrasing of "didnt hear croak" is an incorrect statement.
That doesn't follow. I only started you heard a male croak behind you. Not multiple croak or multiple frogs croaking. Thus one frog behind you did not croak while you were listening.

File: 1499745973720.png (86KB, 1024x728px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1024x728px

>>9054212
sorry i just didn't wan brainlet gf

File: altmer.jpg (336KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 960x1280px

Suppose you're on a [family] game show, and the wife is given the choice of 10 doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats.

She picks a door, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, says "you know, this isn't reasonable" and opens 8 other doors, which all have a goat.

He then says, "There, now there are just two doors to choose from. Behind one, a goat, and the other, a car."

The husband now comes in, not knowing what has happened before and only seeing two doors, and the host says to him,
"Behind one of these doors is a goat. The other, a car. You can choose which door to open, or you could decide to stick with your wife's decision, as she has already picked one of the two doors. Which do you choose?"

What does the husband choose? One of the two doors, or does he stick with his wife's choice from when there were 10 doors?

>>9054262
always switch

>>9054264
*when the host knows

>>9053943
She was being a twit.

The rules governing the host's behavior weren't described, but she assumed that he knew what was behind each door and would always choose a goat to reveal.

That makes her solution work, but it's an unreasonable assumption with the information presented. If the host simply opens a door at random, then switching doesn't improve your odds (although he may reveal a car, in which case you know you lost whether you switch or not). If the host decides whether to open the door and offer you a chance to switch based on what's behind the door you picked, then switching is either a sure win or a sure loss, depending on whether you choosing the goat or the car triggers his action.

So whether the choice matters, how much it matters, and whether switching is the right thing or the wrong thing, all depend on unstated assumptions about the host.

The worst thing is all the asshats who go around repeating her error, and being all Black Science Man about how wonderfully counterintuitive probability can be.

>>9054286
>You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors
Reading comprehension of a babby desu

>>9054286
>That makes her solution work, but it's an unreasonable assumption with the information presented. If the host simply opens a door at random, then switching doesn't improve your odds (although he may reveal a car, in which case you know you lost whether you switch or not).
It's a very good assumption considering there is no reason a game show would want to risk showing the car thereby ruining the game and having to start over.

>>9054264
door 1 door 2 door 3 door 4 door 5 door 6 door 7 door 8 door 9 door 10
car goat goat goat goat goat goat goat goat goat
goat car goat goat goat goat goat goat goat goat
goat goat car goat goat goat goat goat goat goat
goat goat goat car goat goat goat goat goat goat
goat goat goat goat car goat goat goat goat goat
goat goat goat goat goat car goat goat goat goat
goat goat goat goat goat goat car goat goat goat
goat goat goat goat goat goat goat car goat goat
goat goat goat goat goat goat goat goat car goat
goat goat goat goat goat goat goat goat goat car

wife picks door 1
Doors 3-10 are eliminated as goats

door 1 door 2
car goat
goat car

Husband gets to choose door 1, or door 2, or his wife's choice(door 1).

You can see that it doesn't matter. Just like how it doesn't matter if you switch in the original Monty Hall problem. Everyone has just been logically bamboozled by the 2/3rds grouping nonsense.

>>9054306
>wife picks door 1
>Doors 3-10 are eliminated as goats
No, Monty picks the doors specifically to avoid the car in all cases, not simply in the cases where the car is in 1 or 2. Moron. This gives the contestant information that the car is most likely where she picked after Monty removes the other options.

>>9054306
Is this bait? If you pick door 1 there is a 1/10 chance that you picked a car. You showed it yourself with your little diagram.

>>9054179
>>That frog has a 0.5 p of being the right one.
>Sorry but that's impossible. I told you that females don't croak while we already know males at least sometimes croak, so how can you say a frog which you didn't hear croak is equally likely to be male or female?
Either you're a complete idiot, or you're harping on an irrelevancy... which makes you a complete idiot, so...

It's natural to assume that, since it hasn't been stated otherwise, a given frog absent sex information is equally likely to be male or female, especially given all the other unstated assumptions we're expected to make.

In any case, it doesn't matter, because the probability of a given frog being female, absent other information, doesn't affect the correct choice.

Anyway, the unambiguously correct answer is to go for the lone frog, even if you stupidly assume that catching a frog is always a sure thing and never involves any delays or complications, because if you go to the two frogs, you're guaranteed to lick a male frog, thus suffering the act of licking a frog for no benefit.

>>9054316
To elaborate:
case 1
don't switch
case 2
switch
case 3
switch
case 4
switch
case 5
switch
case 6
switch
case 7
switch
case 8
switch
case 9
switch
case 10
switch
If you pick door 2 it's the same except you should only not switch for case 2 and switch for case 1. And so on so forth

>>9054315
>Monty picks the doors specifically to avoid the car in all cases.

That's not even contested. Obviously, that's how the Monty Hall problem works.

It doesn't matter what door the wife picks. The Host gets rid of all but 1 goat. The wife either selected which goat stays, or she picked the car and the Host selects which goat stays.

Either way in the end one door has a goat, and one door has a car.

File: retarded.png (3KB, 698x1284px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 698x1284px

>>9054306
this is obvious bate but i'll bite.

expand the monty hall problem to 1000 doors. a single door has a car. 999 doors have a picture of BBC.

You pick door x. The host removes every door except door x and door y. The prize is guaranteed to be behind one of these doors.

Do you stick with your original door which you picked with a .1% chance of finding a car? Or do you switch doors where you now have a 50% chance of winning a car?

Lets take that back to the original question.

Your first choice had a 1/3 chance of winning.

after the host removes one door if you do not switch doors you still remain at a 1/3 chance to win. If you choose to switch doors you now have a 1/2 chance of winning.

>>9054330
>1/2 chance of winning
btw this assumes these as independent events.

If you look at this as a related event, you actually have a 2/3 chance of winning because out of the original 3 doors you get to pick a second

>>9054317
>Either you're a complete idiot, or you're harping on an irrelevancy... which makes you a complete idiot, so...
So instead of trying to understand what I'm saying and how it relates to the problem you are just going to react to it and eventually realize your mistake. Let's see how long that takes.

>In any case, it doesn't matter, because the probability of a given frog being female, absent other information, doesn't affect the correct choice.
It does if you are going to properly explain the correct answer, instead of just intuiting it.

>It's natural to assume that, since it hasn't been stated otherwise, a given frog absent sex information is equally likely to be male or female, especially given all the other unstated assumptions we're expected to make.
Yes, and you have been given sex information. A lack of croaking gives a higher probability of being female, since females never croak.

So far nothing you've said actually counters what you're replying to. Your post is useless.

File: kolmogorov axiomatization.png (5KB, 503x183px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 503x183px

Shit like this is EXACTLY why mathematicians have settled on a standard definition of probability with a rigorous, formal specification of its associated properties:
To prevent semantic ambiguity in loosely-worded scenarios, that give rise to implementation-defined calculations.

>>9054324
>That's not even contested.
You did contest it by only presenting possibilities in which Monty reveals doors 3-10 in your illustration. By ignoring the other possibilities, you removed 8 of them in which switching would get you the car.

File: poisonous frogs.jpg (77KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 800x600px

>>9054002
>>9054067
>>9054106

Basic probability question assuming even male/female ratios:

frog in front of you:
.5 chance of female.

Frogs behind you:
one is male (0 chance female)
one is maybe male (.5 chance female)
total: .25 chance female

easily verifiable with a simple diagram

>>9053943
Mark my words and mark them well.

I will destroy the Monty Hall Problem and you will live to see it.

>>9054335
not anon you were arguing, but is this diagram correct? >>9054352

Or is it missing something?

>>9054352
This reasoning is the most retarded thing since Monty Hall. I'm not saying you are conveying your thoughts wrong. I'm saying your thoughts are shit.

>>9054359
I think your thoughts are shit because you have none except ad homs and big black penis

>>9054362
your chance of getting the big black penis increases if you switch from ad homs

>>9054364
stop thinking about black penis

>>9054002
it's 50% either way since you heard a croak behind you, meaning one of the frogs is a male for sure (if you are assuming the croak came from one of the two frogs), and there's a 50% chance of the 2nd being a female, same as the 50% chance of the silent frog in front of you.
unless im missing something

monty hall problem you switch, always, it's easily testable

>>9054367
I have a 50% chance.

File: exploding sides funny.jpg (152KB, 715x1538px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 715x1538px

>>9054370
at least you admit it

monty hall is wrong because it assumes the information is transferred when the door is opened, yet the information assumes a car to be a goat. it would work if no doors were opened, then you could switch and get your result.

this stupid frog antidote doesn't work because the probabilities in the two frogs case add, not multiply.

>>9054368
But did the croak really come from one of the frogs behind you?

>>9054374
you keep writing it, so you have a 100% chance :^)

>>9054375
How can a person be so wrong? Did you try being as wrong as humanly possible?

>>9054377
i mean, i think you have to assume it did. If you don't (which i wouldnt, since you just saw 3, there could easily be a 4th!), then for sure you would want to lick 2 instead of one.

>>9054381
he's right about the Monty Hall problem

he's wrong about the frog problem, but that's because it's a poorly constructed problem

>>9054381
Nah, I'm not a mortal like you :)

>>9054383
>then for sure you would want to lick 2 instead of one.
Actually, I think thats the obvious solution.

why not turn around and grab both frogs?

>>9054384
Where is he right about the Monty hall problem? Modeling the situation in a computer simulation agrees that switching is always better.

>>9054352
Nope. See >>9054220

>>9054384
desu I haven't thought as much as the frog problem as I did with the Monty, but the way I see it (I may have misunderstood the problem btw):

You turn around, you have two frogs, one of them is CERTAINLY a male. Thus, remove it altogether from the equation.
So, the probability of licking the female frog in two iterations is 50%. One of the two frogs is bound to be a miss.

>>9054389
models are built to confirm what the logical bumblefuck of bad math predicted

>>9054389
Look at the thought experiment I have written. How is it possible if the no doors opened gives the exact 2/3 solution when you switch? Then what does the door opening even mean?

Work your way from there.

>>9054384
ok I get it, it's multiplicative. I actually feel like I can work my way to the Monty setting from the frog setup. That would be nice

>>9054368
In order for it to be 50%, males would have to be as likely to not croak as females. But we already know that's not true. Try again.

>>9054394
What I mean by no doors opened, is that you don't reveal what is behind the door yet you remove it nevertheless.

>>9054002
Obviously for the lone frog it's 50/50

For the pair of frogs, the three possibilities are (presented with the gender of the croaking frog first)

M, M
M, F

Thus if you lick the two frogs there's a 50% you lick a female.

>>9054422
>three possibilities
>lists two possibilities
The fuck

File: 1485633489614s.jpg (5KB, 250x204px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 250x204px

>>9054135
>>9054110
it's not actually easier to get the goat than to get the car lol
maff amirite

>>9054422
>Obviously for the lone frog it's 50/50
Wrong. That would imply a male frog is as likely to not croak as a female, which we know is false.

>M, M
>M, F
>Thus if you lick the two frogs there's a 50% you lick a female.
Wrong, those possibilities are not equally likely, for the same reason as the above.

>>9054441
The problem definition is shit. The anon is right.

>>9054440
>that moment when dumb frog poster blows everyone the fuck out

>>9054397
but nothing in the puzzle said anything about males always croaking, or a time limit for croaking. The silent frog could be a male or female with the information given. The croaking you heard is one of the frogs behind you, assuming the croak came from one of the two frogs and not a 4th frog.

>>9054433
Typing is hard

Is reading words that aren't there a sign of schizophrenia? Because I think a lot of people ITT may need to see a doctor if so.

>>9054471
this is what happens when you create an A/B scenario and then claim that it doesn't result in an 50/50 split and then let the schizos indoctrinate it on wikipedia

>>9054330
not bait you're just confusing things

your mistake is not that much different than assuming a coin flip that comes up heads means the next coin flip comes up tails

>>9054440
this post blew my mind

>>9054490
The illusion is the opening of the door. It's the same thing with every magic trick. Everyone tries to chase the car but they don't see the door.

If only I knew enough probability to disprove this shit once and for all.

>>9054490
You forget that you are trying to pick the car, the host is trying to pick the door. Given that you picked door 1, he only has the choice of door 2 or 3.
GCG
GGC
Given that the car is not behind door 1, it is equally likely that it is behind door 2 or 3. Therefore, the chance that the host opens door 3 is 50%.
CGG
Given that the car is behind door 1, the chance that the host opens door 3 is also 50%, because, when the host has a choice, either choice is equally likely.

Now these explanations are in fact pointless because the chance of him picking his doors has nothing to do with you picking the car. Just like how whether you flip a head or a tail has no influence as to the chances of you winning the lottery. The chance of you picking the car from a bag of goat one and goat two and one car is 1/3. Hence the chance of you picking goat one or goat two is 1/3 each. Now if you picked a car first try, you shouldn't change. If you picked goat one you should change. If you picked goat two you should change. Since the chances of you picking each of them is equal, 1/3 times you shouldn't change, 2/3 times you should change.

You are misled by his picking of doors when in fact your picking a car first try and his picking door 3 is as related as a coin flip and the lottery.

>>9054444
What are you taking about? The problem is in plain English. Just because you immediately jumped to conclusions about it without considering all the information available doesn't mean it's shit. It means you're shit.

>>9054450
>but nothing in the puzzle said anything about males always croaking, or a time limit for croaking.
Neither of these have anything to do with what I said. The simple fact that females never croak while males have the possibility of croaking is all you need.

>The silent frog could be a male or female with the information given.
Yes. Where did I say otherwise? A lottery winner could win or lose the lottery. Doesn't mean they are equally likely.

>The croaking you heard is one of the frogs behind you, assuming the croak came from one of the two frogs and not a 4th frog.
I'm sorry, but are you retarded? Nothing you've said is wrong, it just has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm telling you.

>>9054943
*not lottery winner, meant lottery player

>>9054943
in that case this riddle is more of a semantic thing than a statistical thing. If you are telling me that a silent frog has more chance to be female than male, you're wrong, or didnt define that in the problem. Saying "only males croak" doesnt imply a silent frog is more likely to be female.

>>9055222
> If you are telling me that a silent frog has more chance to be female than male, you're wrong, or didnt define that in the problem. Saying "only males croak" doesnt imply a silent frog is more likely to be female.
It literally does.

Let F = frog is female
Let S = the frog didn't croak

P(F|S) = P(F) P(S|F) / P(S)

P(F) = 0.5

P(S|F) = 1 since females never croak

So P(F|S) = 0.5 / P(S) > 0.5

Thus a frog which did not croak is more likely to be female.

>>9055271
in that case you worded the problem incorrectly, or left out a piece of information, which apparently is common for this problem.

> Saying "only males croak" doesnt imply a silent frog is more likely to be female.
no it doesnt, nothing in the problem says males for sure croak. What's to stop a male from being silent? The only thing that information gives us is that if you hear a croaking, it must be male. Not the other way around, where if you DONT hear croaking, it must be female.

i really think you left some information out in the original problem

>>9055311
>in that case you worded the problem incorrectly, or left out a piece of information, which apparently is common for this problem.
What information did I leave out? What did I word incorrectly? Which is it?

>no it doesnt, nothing in the problem says males for sure croak. What's to stop a male from being silent?
Wow you sure are dumb. The simple fact that a male has *a chance* of croaking (NOT a guarantee of croaking, retard) while a female does not directly implies that a silent frog is more likely to be female. I just proved that in the post you're replying to. Instead of showing how my proof is wrong, you just doubled down on your stupidity.

>Not the other way around, where if you DONT hear croaking, it must be female.
I didn't say it must be female, I said it's more likely to be female, illiterate ass.

>>9055311
>What's to stop a male from being silent?
Nothing, it's just less likely than a female being silent. Which means that a silent frog is less likely to be male. Learn2probability

>>9055352
>Nothing, it's just less likely than a female being silent. Which means that a silent frog is less likely to be male. Learn2probability

thank you. my fucking binary ass mind was stuck.

>>9054441
Ah you're right. I'll have to think about it for a second more then

>>9055425
Yeah >>9054441
it still doesn't matter if you lick the first one or the pair, but the probability of living is a bit more than 50% in both cases.

>>9054198

>there is nothing changing the odds you pick the right door the second time based upon what you picked the first time. they're unrelated.

Nope. Contestant revealing one door brings new information. Switching is advantageous compared to not switching, period.

>>9054002
They're equal. Let M be the probability a frog is male and P be the probability a male frog would have croaked in the time you were listening. Then (1-M)/(1-MP) is your probability of survival in both cases.

>>9055501
Correct.

>>9055454
>brings new information
And what exactly is that information? :^)

>>9055578
You see, it's so easy calling you faggots out who parrot >muh infomashion because I actually worked out that information and the contradiction lies right there.

There was a time when I was like "damn I don't fit in /sci/ everyone is smart with their education and their 300k starting jobs"

but then threads like this come along and make me realize you cheeky jerks are no geniuses either

>>9055681
You gonna switch or keep talking?

>>9055692
I for one am pretty sure switch is the correct answer, doesn't even matter even just the fact that there's so much disagreement on issues which really should not have any is disappointing. I used to have the decency to shut my mouth when I wasn't 100% certain to be well informed

>>9054002
50% chance for either one, I think.
For the pair:
>25% MM
>25% MF
>25% FM
>0% FF
For the single:
>50% chance F
>50% chance M

What I don't know is if the probability of each occurrence for the pairs goes up to 33.33%? So the probability of getting a female becomes 66.66% so you'd go for the pair?

>>9055743
they will tell you you are wrong because the probability of the "silent" one being female goes higher than 50% since it is silent, and not croaking. stupid fucking logic but yea. with the statements given, it's 50% either way

>>9055748
Assuming males don't croak 24/7 then the probability of it being male or female remains 50%

>>9055753
Wrong. See >>9055271

>>9055753
see, told you this would happen >>9055756

>>9055753
So if I told you most men don't wear makeup while most women wore makeup, and then I told you my friend does not wear makeup, you think it's equally likely my friend is one of the rare women who don't wear makeup as it is he's one of the many men who don't wear makeup? You fundamentally don't understand probability.

>>9055773
Answer >>9055775

>>9055681
I blame the /pol/ crossboarders, they're not the brightest bunch.

>>9055775
The probability of both silent ones being female increases then, to let's say 51%.
So for the pair:
>MM 24.01%
>FM 24.99%
>MF 24.99%
>FF 0%
For the single
>F 51%
>M 49%
Does the probability of MF, FM and MM increase to proportionally fit into 100% therefore you choose the pair?
I'm curious even though I might be a retard

>>9055868
1/(2-x) = 0.51

x = 0.0392157

x being the chance of a male croaking while you were listening.

So for the pair we have

M croak, M no croak -> (0.0392157)(1-0.0392157)
M croak, F no croak -> (0.0392157)(1)

0.0392157 / (0.0392157+0.0392157(1-0.0392157)) 1/(2-0.0392157) = 0.51

Voila, same chance of survival either way. See your MM, MF, FM method would be correct of there was no way to distinguish between the frogs. But we can since we know one croaked and the other did not.

>>9053943
Do you chances of getting the car not go up from 33% to 50% once the first goat is revealed?

At that point you have only two doors left to pick from, making it a 50/50 shot.

How the fuck are the supposed to suddenly have a 2/3 chance?

>>9056199
Nevermind I'm drunk and retarded.

>>9054002
Run to the pair of frogs. Lick both. \

1. One of them croaked.

2. One of them is male.

3. Therefore, if you lick both, you will lick at least one male with 100% probability.

How is this supposed to be difficult, again?.

>>9056235
It's the female that secretes the antidote. You have the same probability of finding a female for both the pair and lone frog. You know that only one frog in the pair has the chance to be female, but have no certainty that it is. As such, either option is equally good (or bad).

>>9054002
lone frog, the two behind you could have croaked at the same time sounding like one croak.

it would have been an awfully stupid question to ask if the answer were not surprising. they should have known to try the experiment a few times before writing in, or at least figured that she would have done the same before writing up the article.

speaking of IQ, what professional iq test should i take if i want to get a good assessment?

>>9054440
!!!

>>9053943
> And the host, who knows what's behind the door, opens another door
> And the host ... opens another door

This is often the way the problem is phrased, and it's a very problematic phrasing. We're not actually given any information about how the host chooses a door, we just know that they choose a door, and that they know what's behind each door. There's nothing in this phrasing that precludes the possibility that they choose a door to open at random.

File: 0ba79ae.jpg (3KB, 100x100px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 100x100px

>>9054440

File: ortf[1].png (25KB, 785x534px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 785x534px

>>9055887
Not the guy you responded to, but I'm trying to understand this conceptually since I'm not sure at all what math you did.

What's making it difficult for me to wrap my head around the idea that the probabilities are the same is, the regardless of whether the probability of the non-croaker being a female is higher because he/she hasn't croaked, that factor is the same for both the non-croakers.

The difference between the choices, to me, seems to be between one which is a non-croaker with an indeterminate chance (though presumably above 50%) of being a female and another non-croaker which is exactly the same but has a croaker (i.e. the result you definitely DO NOT want) added to the possibilities.

Where am I going wrong, preferably in Brainletese?

>>9056436
Sorry, I realized my picture is wrong right after posting it. In the bottom, chances of picking are 0 + 0.5p and chances of picking are 0.5(1-p) + 0.5

>>9054002

run to the lone frog?

nah, it's the same if you're allowed to lick both of the frogs behind you.


i suck at monty hall type problems.

>>9056485
Oh, OH. I didn't know licking both was the alternative, totally missed that in the original prompt and thought we were only allowed to lick one. Had me questioning my sanity there for a while.

>>9056373
It doesn't actually matter how they choose the door, since we know that it was a door we didn't pick and contained a goat.

>>9056436
Well there are two options. The more intuitive option is to use the principle of proportionality. That means that when an option is taken away, the remaining options' probabilities are scaled up by the same factor to sum to 1. The more rigorous way is to use Bayes' theorem.

>>9056644
Wrong. If Monty opened a goat door by chance then there is no increase in information:

You pick door 1
1. C G G
a. Monty picks 2 -> switching gets goat
b. Monty picks 3 -> switching gets goat
2. G C G
a. Monty picks 2 -> car revealed
b. Monty picks 3 -> switching gets car
3. G G C
a. Monty picks 2 -> switching gets car
b. Monty picks 3 -> car revealed

So if Monty picks randomly then it's back to 50/50

>>9054018
Yeah, what if you WANT a goat?

Cars cost money and can only take you places. Goats make money and can provide you with milk.

>>9053943
>Tldr higher iq destroys Brainlet Mathematical community
>approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs,
Gender studies PhD's don't count as the mathematical community, cletus

Back to breitbart now

>>9054002
Wow did you just assume their gender? I can't even right now wow

>>9056644
It matters.

Where the OP says "under the standard assumptions", one of those assumptions is that the host will never open a door to reveal a car.

More precisely, the assumptions are that:
1. There are two goats and one car.
2. The assignment of rewards (goat, car) to doors and the contestant's initial choice of door are random.
3. The contestant is always offered the chance to switch.
4a. The host never opens the door chosen by the contestant.
4b. If the chosen door has the car, the host will open one of the two goat doors at random (50-50 split).
4c. If the chosen door has a goat, the host will always open the other goat door.

If the host were to always open a door at random (meaning that there's a chance of him revealing the car), then assuming that he reveals a goat, the probability of winning is 1/2 regardless of whether the contestant switches.

But with assumption 4b, the probability of winning is 1/3 if the contestant doesn't switch and 2/3 if they do.

>>9057202
> Yeah, what if you WANT a goat?
Then win the car, sell the car, buy a goat, pocket the difference.

Just because you're more used to seeing car dealers than livestock markets, that doesn't mean that goats are actually hard to acquire.

>>9054352
true, but if you reach the two frogs, you can lick both of them. you only need one of them to be female. therefore, we can exclude the frog that croaked from this equation. so what we have are two single frogs on opposite sides, each with only a 50% chance of being female. therefore, both choices have the same probability.

>>9057706
No, they don't have a 50% chance of being female, because a silent frog is more likely to be female than male, since females are always silent while males are not always silent.

>>9054198

one quadrillion doors, you pick one

1 / 1 000 000 000 000 000 chance you picked the correct door

all other doors but one are revealed to have a goat behind them

does switching improve your chances, or do you have a 1/2 chance of having been correct the first time?

holy shit i love /sci/

>>9055454
thanks for this, i finally get it.

>>9053951
Rape

>>9054198
the first time, you had a 33% chance of being right, which means you had a 67% chance of being wrong the first time. a 67% chance that the answer was not the first one you picked.

thats why providing new information among that 67% of "more likely to have the win" is so helpful. staying leaves you in the 33% while switching gives you a heavily discounted chance at the 66%

File: commie-owarimonogatari-02-52e40d9e-mkv_snapshot_08-41_2015-10-22_17-22-16[1].jpg (55KB, 958x539px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 958x539px

Fact 1: The chance of being wrong is 2/3.

Action: We choose a door.

Result: Another door is revealed to be the wrong door.

Fact 2: Revealing information about another door does not reveal information about our chosen door.

Deduction: Fact 2 does not contradict Fact 1, therefore we choose the third door.

not reading the thread after the frog problem was posted.
all that ever happens is le master frogman calls everybody retarded after people try to prove that either there is or isnt a difference, then the thread gets pruned because it devolves into shitflinging

>ur just fucking dumb u dont GET IT
>"your problem is poorly worded/leavng out informaiton"
>YEAH WHAT INFORMATION IS IT LEAVING OUT HUH TOUGH GUY?????
>"this isnt about logic or probabilities its about you autistically grinding semantic bullshit out for no reason like the probibility of a frok not croaking and rate of croaks"
>BRAINLET LMAO?????
>EVERYBODY STOPPED REPLYING THAT MEANS THE FROG JOKE LIVES ANOTHER DAY

the worst

how can frogs be real if half an a-press isnt real

The frog question needs to also state that there's no difference in probability between MF or MM or FF pairings. For some animals like deer, a pair being together is much more likely to be a mating MF pair. In other species, the females are in-heat for only small portions of the year, so a pair of them would be more likely to be males asserting their territory against other males.

But if MM/FF/MF groupings are equally likely, then the fact that we heard a croak from the group means that the 2 frogs is 50/50 chance of being either a MM or MF group.

>>9060476
edit: so the only way the frog problem could be comparable to the monty hall problem is if, instead of opening one of the non-chosen doors to reveal a goat, you're instead hearing a goat braying from one of the other 2 doors, but you can't tell which door the sound came from. So you know there's at least 1 goat not chosen, which you already knew before hearing the sound. Since they wouldn't put both goats within the same chosen door, there will always be at least 1 non-chosen goat.

>>9054002

There's no difference, its still 50/50. In the Monty Hall problem, you switch because Monty is indirectly telling you he knows where the car is. Its contingent on him knowing that. The frog isn't telling you anything, so it doesn't matter if you switch.

>>9060488

Monty is telling you he knows where the car ISN'T. Unless the fact that he opens door 3 means 100% that Monty knows the car is behind door 2 while his opening door 2 means it's 50/50 that the car is behind 1 or 3.

>>9060498

Sorry, isn't then. But if he didn't know anything about the car, it would make no difference whether you switch or not, and that's like this frog thing. The frogs aren't telling you anything.

>>9060504

he obviously knows the location of the car, because otherwise 33% of the time he would oops reveal the location of the car, and that never happens.