Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 53309
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/04/05 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
4/5     

2009/8/30-9/9 [Computer/Theory] UID:53309 Activity:low Cat_by:auto
8/30    I thought this was kinda interesting. Monty Hall Problem, a classic:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
        \- one of the first profs to write on this is from ucb pub health
           the newcomb paradox [from livermore] is even crazier.
        \_ This is now a classic problem in cs70.  I totally didn't believe it
           for a while, but I think understanding why you always want to
           switch doors gives a lot of insight to probability theory. -mrauser
        \_ What about the monty python problem?
        \_ See also: Principle of Restricted Choice   -tom
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_restricted_choice_%28bridge%29
2025/04/05 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
4/5     

You may also be interested in these entries...
2011/4/26-7/13 [Computer/Theory, Health/Women] UID:54095 Activity:nil
4/26    Is it correct to say that Godel's work on the incompleteness thm
        proved the Principia Mathematica wrong?
        \_ It didn't exactly prove it wrong; it proved that the true goal of
           PM (a complete and consistent set of mathematical truths)
           is unattainable.  -tom
           \_ Ah cool, no this is good. See ok yeah so the main goal of PM
	...
2009/1/13-22 [Computer/Theory] UID:52367 Activity:kinda low
1/13    I am writing a commandline parser for a class and I could use some
        tips for algorithms to use. (The project is over and done so I am
        not cheating, but I am dissatisfied with my end result.) I STFW and
        didn't come up with too much I liked. I read the source for some
        shells like tcsh and that is *WAY* too complicated and relies on
        a lot of other code. I know that browsers and other apps have
	...
2005/12/9-11 [Computer/SW/Languages/Misc] UID:40932 Activity:low
12/8    How do I make a non-italicized greek letter in Latex?
        \_ If you use them as mathematical characters, they're
           always variables. (I know this doesn't help much.)
        \_ Thanks to the person who nuked my reply. Most fonts probably
           do not have non-italic Greek, and most LaTeX packages probably
           don't support non-italic Greek. You need a font that has glyphs
	...
2005/9/9-13 [Computer/SW/OS/OsX] UID:39595 Activity:low
9/9     Does OSX gcc still not support weak symbol definitions?  ie, I
        can't redefine malloc or new? (In this case actually I'm defining
        something as weak, either with #pragma weak or
        __attribute__((weak)) but OSX doesn't seem to support either!)
        -jrleek
        \- hello, have you tried __attribute__((weak_import)). what gcc
	...
Cache (8192 bytes)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
veridical paradox in that the result appears absurd but is demonstrably true. The problem can be unambiguously stated as follows: Suppose you're on a game show and you're given the choice of three doors. The car and the goats were placed randomly behind the doors before the show. The rules of the game show are as follows: After you have chosen a door, the door remains closed for the time being. The game show host, Monty Hall, who knows what is behind the doors, now has to open one of the two remaining doors, and the door he opens must have a goat behind it. If both remaining doors have goats behind them, he chooses one randomly. After Monty Hall opens a door with a goat, he will ask you to decide whether you want to stay with your first choice or to switch to the last remaining door. Imagine that you chose Door 1 and the host opens Door 3, which has a goat. He then asks you "Do you want to switch to Door Number 2?" Krauss and Wang 2003:10) As there is no way for the player to know which of the two remaining unopened doors is the winning door, most people assume that each of these doors has an equal probability and conclude that switching does not matter. In fact, the player should switch--doing so doubles the probability of winning the car from 1/3 to 2/3. PhDs, wrote to the magazine claiming the published solution was wrong. Some of the controversy was because the Parade version of the problem is technically ambiguous since it leaves certain aspects of the host's behavior unstated, for example, whether the host must open a door and must make the offer to switch. Variants of the problem involving these and other assumptions have been published in mathematical literature. These and other problems involving unequal distributions of probability are notoriously difficult for people to solve correctly, and have led to numerous psychological studies. Even when given a completely unambiguous statement of the Monty Hall problem, explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still meet the correct answer with disbelief. The car and the goats were placed randomly behind the doors before the show. The rules of the game show are as follows: After you have chosen a door, the door remains closed for the time being. The game show host, Monty Hall, who knows what is behind the doors, now has to open one of the two remaining doors, and the door he opens must have a goat behind it. If both remaining doors have goats behind them, he chooses one randomly. After Monty Hall opens a door with a goat, he will ask you to decide whether you want to stay with your first choice or to switch to the last remaining door. Imagine that you chose Door 1 and the host opens Door 3, which has a goat. He then asks you "Do you want to switch to Door Number 2?" edit Popular solution The player, having chosen a door, has a 1/3 chance of having the car behind the chosen door and a 2/3 chance that it's behind one of the other doors. It is assumed that when the host opens a door to reveal a goat, this action does not give the player any new information about what is behind the door he has chosen, so the probability of there being a car behind a different door remains 2/3; Economist 1999): 1 Host reveals either goat Player picks car (probability 1/3) Switching loses. The player has an equal chance of initially selecting the car, Goat A, or Goat B Switching results in a win 2/3 of the time. Player's pick has a 1/3 chance, other two doors a 2/3 chance split 2/3 for the still unopened one and 0 for the one the host opened Another way to understand the solution is to consider the two original unchosen doors together. Adams 1990), "Monty is saying in effect: you can keep your one door or you can have the other two doors." The player therefore has the choice of either sticking with the original choice of door, or choosing the sum of the contents of the two other doors, as the 2/3 chance of hiding the car hasn't been changed by the opening of one of these doors. Devlin 2003), "By opening his door, Monty is saying to the contestant 'There are two doors you did not choose, and the probability that the prize is behind one of them is 2/3. I'll help you by using my knowledge of where the prize is to open one of those two doors to show you that it does not hide the prize. You can now take advantage of this additional information. Your choice of door A has a chance of 1 in 3 of being the winner. These solutions show that the probability of winning for all players who switch is 2/3, but without certain assumptions this does not necessarily mean the probability of winning by switching is 2/3 given which door the host opens. For example, if the host opens Door 3 and the player switches, the player wins with overall probability 1/3 if the car is behind Door 2 and loses with overall probability 1/6 if the car is behind Door 1--the possibilities involving the host opening Door 2 do not apply. To convert these to conditional probabilities they are divided by their sum, so the conditional probability of winning by switching given the player picks Door 1 and the host opens Door 3 is (1/3)/(1/3 + 1/6), which is 2/3. This analysis depends on the constraint in the explicit problem statement that the host choose which door to open randomly if the player has initially selected the car. They consider a scenario where the host chooses which door to open in this case with a preference expressed as a probability q, having a value between 0 and 1 If the host picks randomly q would be 1/2 and switching wins with probability 2/3 regardless of which door the host opens. If the player picks Door 1 and the host's preference for Door 3 is q, then in the case where the host opens Door 3 switching wins with overall probability 1/3 if the car is behind Door 2 and loses with overall probability (1/3)q if the car is behind Door 1 The conditional probability of winning by switching given the host opens Door 3 is therefore (1/3)/(1/3 + (1/3)q) which simplifies to 1/(1+q). Since q can vary between 0 and 1 this conditional probability can vary between 1/2 and 1 This means even without constraining the host to pick randomly if the player initially selects the car, the player is never worse off switching. no other statistical puzzle comes so close to fooling all the people all the time" and "that even Nobel physicists systematically give the wrong answer, and that they insist on it, and they are ready to berate in print those who propose the right answer." This intuition is the basis of solutions to the problem that assert the host's action of opening a door does not change the player's initial 1/3 chance of selecting the car. For example, if the host opens Door 3 whenever possible then the probability of winning by switching for players initially choosing Door 1 is 2/3 overall, but only 1/2 if the host opens Door 3 In its usual form the problem statement does not specify this detail of the host's behavior, making the answer that switching wins the car with probability 2/3 mathematically unjustified. Many commonly presented solutions address the unconditional probability, ignoring which door the host opens; edit Why the probability is not 1/2 This difference can be demonstrated by contrasting the original problem with a variation that appeared in vos Savant's column in November 2006. In this version, Monty Hall forgets which door hides the car. He opens one of the doors at random and is relieved when a goat is revealed. Asked whether the contestant should switch, vos Savant correctly replied, "If the host is clueless, it makes no difference whether you stay or switch. In this case there are 999,999 doors with goats behind them and one door with a prize. The game host then opens 999,998 of the other doors revealing 999,998 goats--imagine the host starting with the first door and going down a line of 1,000,000 doors, opening each one, skipping over only the player's door and one other door. The host then offers the player the chance to switch to the only other unopened door. On average, in 999,999 out of 1,000,000 times the other door will contain the prize, as 999,999 out of 1,000,000 times the player f...
Cache (2595 bytes)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_restricted_choice_%28bridge%29
contract bridge, the principle of restricted choice states that the play of a particular card increases the likelihood that the player doesn't have another equivalent one. It is used to help a player find the best line of play in certain situations. There are several different ways to express the Principle. One of them is: The play of a particular card (one that might have been selected from two or more equals) increases the likelihood that the player doesn't have the other one. If the player "doesn't have the other one," his choice was restricted. Suppose that declarer leads small toward dummy's cSAJ10, and West follows suit with the cSK. But with the cSK only, West had no choice: if he were to play an honor, he had to play the cSK. That makes it twice as likely that West had the cSK but no cSQ than that he held both the cSK and the cSQ. The combination of cards that the player might select from need not be touching: it could be the cCQ and the cC10, if it is known that the cCJ has, for example, already been played. But the majority of examples of the Principle show the cards as touching - that is, the cHQJ, for example, or the cDKQ. The Principle of Restricted Choice is a somewhat elusive concept, and most people find it necessary to see it discussed several different ways before things start to become clear. Besides being a convenient way to refer to the combination, it underscores the assumption that the player would choose one of the cards at random, and that it doesn't matter which he selects. As Reese put it, selecting one of the cards affords a presumption that he doesn't hold the other. finesse with the cS10, playing West for an original holding of cSQ32? According to the Principle of Restricted Choice, the finesse is nearly twice as likely to succeed. The initial possibilities, prior to any play in the suit, are shown in the following table. So, on the second trick in this suit, should declarer play to drop the remaining honor card from East or finesse West for it? The Principle shows that the finesse works almost twice as often as playing for the drop. If East had both the cSK and the cSQ he had a choice of card to play to the first trick: sometimes he would play the cSK, and sometimes he would play the cSQ. The Principle assumes that half the time he would play the cSK (it turns out that to do so is his best approach). Therefore the probability that East held the doubleton cSKQ is halved, because he did in fact play the cSK. With the cSK but not the cSQ his choice was restricted (that is, he had no choice) and was forced to play the cSK.