Author
|
Topic: Awesome Pictures Thread (Read 2939192 times)
|
apocrypha
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6711
Planes? Shit, I'm terrified to get in my car now!
|
I love these.
|
"Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1915.
|
|
|
Rishathra
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1059
|
The guy who makes those does some pretty cool stuff. I like to check in every few weeks to see what else he's come up with.
|
"...you'll still be here trying to act cool while actually being a bored and frustrated office worker with a vibrating anger-valve puffing out internet hostility." - Falconeer "That looks like English but I have no idea what you just said." - Trippy
|
|
|
Raging Turtle
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1885
|
Not going to read it. That's a case of math missing the point. Regardless of what you do, you still only get one door out of three.
Many readers refused to believe that switching is beneficial. After the Monty Hall problem appeared in Parade, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine claiming that vos Savant was wrong. (Tierney 1991) Even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still do not accept that switching is the best strategy Read the article and do the card trick it suggests as proof. It's not intuitive, but it's also not complicated.
|
|
|
|
Morat20
Terracotta Army
Posts: 18529
|
Heck, you're here. Can you write code? Simulate the problem a million times, switching half the time and staying half the time.
Compare the results.
It's not hard to simulate, and the numbes bear it out -- switching wins 2/3rds of the time under the classic setup. (Which was never, IIRC, actually ever used on the game show). Staying wins 1/3rd of the time. Seriously, you can bang it out in C in like fifteen minutes. Five of which will be "how the fuck does the goddamn random() shit work again?"
There's also the million-door varient, which (to me) makes it ridiculously clear. You have a million doors. Behind one is a prize. You pick a door. The host throws open all but one of the remaining doors, showing nada. Should you switch or should you stay? You should switch.
Also, in general -- if it's a choice between "what the math says" and "what my gut says" on a matter of basic probability, go with the math. Vegas makes tons of money off people who go with their guts.
|
|
|
|
Miasma
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5283
Stopgap Measure
|
Not going to read it. That's a case of math missing the point. Regardless of what you do, you still only get one door out of three.
No, you get one choice of three doors and then a second choice of two doors. I'm going to assume you are trolling by sticking your head in the sand and refusing to believe the truth on the very scenario designed to do exactly that.
|
|
|
|
Mosesandstick
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2476
|
I think drawing a probability tree is one of the easier ways of being sure about the switch.
|
|
|
|
Morfiend
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6009
wants a greif tittle
|
There's also the million-door varient, which (to me) makes it ridiculously clear. You have a million doors. Behind one is a prize. You pick a door. The host throws open all but one of the remaining doors, showing nada. Should you switch or should you stay? You should switch.
When I first heard this problem I thought as Cyrrex does now, then someone explained the million door version and I had that "aha" or lightbulb moment. It comes down to 1 of 3 ONLY if you dont change doors. You should switch
|
|
|
|
Morat20
Terracotta Army
Posts: 18529
|
There's also the million-door varient, which (to me) makes it ridiculously clear. You have a million doors. Behind one is a prize. You pick a door. The host throws open all but one of the remaining doors, showing nada. Should you switch or should you stay? You should switch.
When I first heard this problem I thought as Cyrrex does now, then someone explained the million door version and I had that "aha" or lightbulb moment. It comes down to 1 of 3 ONLY if you dont change doors. You should switchEffectively, throwing open the doors is a smokescreen -- it's designed to confuse people. (In fact, it's one of a handful of problems designed to teach students that their instincts on probabilty are often wrong). The real choice is "Do you want the original door you picked, or all the other doors combined? The prize never moved". You really want "all the other doors combined".
|
|
|
|
Sky
Terracotta Army
Posts: 32117
I love my TV an' hug my TV an' call it 'George'.
|
On the monty haul thing - I didn't realize one of the remaining doors was opened to show no prize. In that case, it's obvious you switch. I thought it was based on the doors remaining closed.
|
|
« Last Edit: September 01, 2011, 08:40:05 AM by Sky »
|
|
|
|
|
Lantyssa
Terracotta Army
Posts: 20848
|
|
Hahahaha! I'm really good at this!
|
|
|
Engels
Terracotta Army
Posts: 9029
inflicts shingles.
|
About the 1 million door illustration that clarified my 'intuitive issue': From the wiki
This [million door] example can also be used to illustrate the opposite situation in which the host does not know where the prize is and opens doors randomly. There is a 999,999/1,000,000 probability that the contestant selects wrong initially, and the prize is behind one of the other doors. If the host goes about randomly opening doors not knowing where the prize is, the probability is likely that the host will reveal the prize before two doors are left (the contestant's choice and one other) to switch between. If the host happens to not reveal the car, then both of the remaining doors have an equal probability of containing a car. Emphasis mine. In other words, if the host knows where the car is, then the probability increases. If on the other hand, the host doesn't know, then the probability remains the same. Most people going with the 'gut' instinct assume, even though its explicitly said at the start, that the host is picking randomly, when in fact he's specifically knows to not pick the car door. That's what reduces the probability, not the actual switching itself, which in the 3 door solution seems pure magical thinking, and hence the refusal to 'believe'.
|
I should get back to nature, too. You know, like going to a shop for groceries instead of the computer. Maybe a condo in the woods that doesn't even have a health club or restaurant attached. Buy a car with only two cup holders or something. -Signe
I LIKE being bounced around by Tonkors. - Lantyssa
Babies shooting themselves in the head is the state bird of West Virginia. - schild
|
|
|
Morat20
Terracotta Army
Posts: 18529
|
About the 1 million door illustration that clarified my 'intuitive issue': From the wiki
This [million door] example can also be used to illustrate the opposite situation in which the host does not know where the prize is and opens doors randomly. There is a 999,999/1,000,000 probability that the contestant selects wrong initially, and the prize is behind one of the other doors. If the host goes about randomly opening doors not knowing where the prize is, the probability is likely that the host will reveal the prize before two doors are left (the contestant's choice and one other) to switch between. If the host happens to not reveal the car, then both of the remaining doors have an equal probability of containing a car. Emphasis mine. In other words, if the host knows where the car is, then the probability increases. If on the other hand, the host doesn't know, then the probability remains the same. Most people going with the 'gut' instinct assume, even though its explicitly said at the start, that the host is picking randomly, when in fact he's specifically knows to not pick the car door. That's what reduces the probability, not the actual switching itself, which in the 3 door solution seems pure magical thinking, and hence the refusal to 'believe'. Huh. I thought it was explicit that the host deliberately revealed non-prize doors.
|
|
|
|
Lantyssa
Terracotta Army
Posts: 20848
|
Emphasis mine. In other words, if the host knows where the car is, then the probability increases. If on the other hand, the host doesn't know, then the probability remains the same.
There is an equal probability only if the host has a chance of opening the door to reveal the car, in which case you've already lost. The point of the game is that the door opened does not have the car. Maybe the host doesn't know, but his assistant pops out from the door. Your odds are still better to switch doors. Your pick: 1 in 3 chance. Host pick: 2 in 3 chance. Since the game eliminates the bad door, you are meant to think, "Oh, it's 50/50!". However, the door eliminated is dependent upon what you picked. That's the trick. Your pick is random. The elimination is not. There is still a 2 in 3 chance of the car being behind the host's door because it was part of a larger set.
|
Hahahaha! I'm really good at this!
|
|
|
Mosesandstick
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2476
|
Huh. I thought it was explicit that the host deliberately revealed non-prize doors.
Definitely, but it's also usually brought up when taught so that students can think about how it makes the problem different.
|
|
|
|
Prospero
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1473
|
About the 1 million door illustration that clarified my 'intuitive issue': From the wiki
This [million door] example can also be used to illustrate the opposite situation in which the host does not know where the prize is and opens doors randomly. There is a 999,999/1,000,000 probability that the contestant selects wrong initially, and the prize is behind one of the other doors. If the host goes about randomly opening doors not knowing where the prize is, the probability is likely that the host will reveal the prize before two doors are left (the contestant's choice and one other) to switch between. If the host happens to not reveal the car, then both of the remaining doors have an equal probability of containing a car. Emphasis mine. In other words, if the host knows where the car is, then the probability increases. If on the other hand, the host doesn't know, then the probability remains the same. Most people going with the 'gut' instinct assume, even though its explicitly said at the start, that the host is picking randomly, when in fact he's specifically knows to not pick the car door. That's what reduces the probability, not the actual switching itself, which in the 3 door solution seems pure magical thinking, and hence the refusal to 'believe'. Huh. I thought it was explicit that the host deliberately revealed non-prize doors. It is. The variant that Engles is using is showing the case where the host does not know which door has the prize and accidentally opens 999,998 doors with goats behind them. Also from the wiki, describing the standard Vos Savant solution. It may be easier to appreciate the solution by considering the same problem with 1,000,000 doors instead of just three (vos Savant 1990). In this case there are 999,999 doors with goats behind them and one door with a prize. The player picks a door. His initial probability of winning is 1 out of 1,000,000. 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 first picked a door with a goat.
|
|
|
|
Engels
Terracotta Army
Posts: 9029
inflicts shingles.
|
It is explicit, but it can be overlooked when thinking about the problem 'too mathematically', if you will.
Lets pose the problem entirely differently, eliminating the host altogether to remove the implicit psychological factor that the host wants you to lose:
Assume you are both player and host and you have a million doors. You pick one. Chances are at 1/1M. You then randomly open all remaining doors but one. Statistically, chances of accidentally opening the door with the car are 999,998 out of 999,999. On the rare occurrence that you have NOT picked the car by accident (1/999,999), then the remaining choices are indeed 1/2, which is better than the initial probability of 1/1M. Hence 'switching' is good, but if you take into account that you had to go through billions of times where you randomly accidentally chose the door with the car and revealed it, then the chances are still just as awful as the initial 1/1M.
So, introducing the host into the picture and forcefully eliminating the second random choice of 1/999,999, then you have in fact removed the bad chances. In the million door case, the 1/999,999 probability and in the 3 door case, the 1/3 probability.
|
I should get back to nature, too. You know, like going to a shop for groceries instead of the computer. Maybe a condo in the woods that doesn't even have a health club or restaurant attached. Buy a car with only two cup holders or something. -Signe
I LIKE being bounced around by Tonkors. - Lantyssa
Babies shooting themselves in the head is the state bird of West Virginia. - schild
|
|
|
Prospero
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1473
|
Correct. If you solve a different problem than the Monty Haul problem you shockingly enough get a different answer.
|
|
|
|
Engels
Terracotta Army
Posts: 9029
inflicts shingles.
|
But that's what's psychologically interesting about it. The mathematics behind it aren't that hard, but what is hard is to grasp why people pick the wrong answer. Its not simply the bias towards sticking with your first decision; its obfuscated by misunderstandings regarding the problem's first assumptions.
|
I should get back to nature, too. You know, like going to a shop for groceries instead of the computer. Maybe a condo in the woods that doesn't even have a health club or restaurant attached. Buy a car with only two cup holders or something. -Signe
I LIKE being bounced around by Tonkors. - Lantyssa
Babies shooting themselves in the head is the state bird of West Virginia. - schild
|
|
|
Morat20
Terracotta Army
Posts: 18529
|
When taught in class, the problem is obvious. Three doors, it's 1/3. Two doors, it's 50/50. That's where people's gut understanding of statistics begins and ends.
Most people, unless they've trained up to it, simply can't instinctively handle two or more step statistical problems instinctively. They can handle a simple, straightforward case -- but add in changes, hidden information or partial information (or what's exposed as the problem progresses) and people's instincts fail them.
I guess it's the difference between a unique event and a series of related statistical events.
|
|
|
|
Prospero
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1473
|
Sorry Engles, I mixed you up with Cyrrex there and thought you were arguing that the math was wrong. My bad.
|
|
|
|
Engels
Terracotta Army
Posts: 9029
inflicts shingles.
|
This whole thing should probably be branched into useless conversation or something, cuz there's not a Awesome picture in sight. To that effect: Awsome 1/2 probability goat:
|
I should get back to nature, too. You know, like going to a shop for groceries instead of the computer. Maybe a condo in the woods that doesn't even have a health club or restaurant attached. Buy a car with only two cup holders or something. -Signe
I LIKE being bounced around by Tonkors. - Lantyssa
Babies shooting themselves in the head is the state bird of West Virginia. - schild
|
|
|
01101010
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12004
You call it an accident. I call it justice.
|
More Marty please... oh wait, he is probably more Funny.
|
Does any one know where the love of God goes...When the waves turn the minutes to hours? -G. Lightfoot
|
|
|
Morat20
Terracotta Army
Posts: 18529
|
That goat is fairly awesome. It will blend in well with the zebras.
|
|
|
|
Sky
Terracotta Army
Posts: 32117
I love my TV an' hug my TV an' call it 'George'.
|
More Marty please...
|
|
|
|
MahrinSkel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10858
When she crossed over, she was just a ship. But when she came back... she was bullshit!
|
Not going to read it. That's a case of math missing the point. Regardless of what you do, you still only get one door out of three.
Here's the key to understanding the Monty Hall problem: There's one parameter that is implied, but never stated: Monty knows which doors have goats. So when he opens a door with a goat, you think you haven't actually learned anything (because you already knew one of the doors you weren't taking had a goat), but you have (the "not goat" potential of the door left over has increased). Your instinctive judgement of the chances is based on Monty picking a door at random, but he's not. --Dave
|
--Signature Unclear
|
|
|
Merusk
Terracotta Army
Posts: 27449
Badge Whore
|
And that's the part everyone never understand until it's explained. As soon as you do that, suddenly people say "oooh." Everyone makes different assumptions. I always assumed the scenario was out to screw me and he was just a clueless cog when offering the chance to switch doors, which is why I never understood "you're now picking from 2 doors."
|
|
« Last Edit: September 02, 2011, 04:22:47 AM by Merusk »
|
|
The past cannot be changed. The future is yet within your power.
|
|
|
lamaros
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8021
|
It still surprises me when people don't get these things off the bat. Still, they're fun to explain to people who don't get them. Maybe we should have a thread!
|
|
|
|
bhodi
Moderator
Posts: 6817
No lie.
|
|
|
|
|
KallDrexx
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3510
|
That is on so many levels :D
|
|
|
|
Lantyssa
Terracotta Army
Posts: 20848
|
The sysadmin one is so true.
|
Hahahaha! I'm really good at this!
|
|
|
Soln
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4737
the opportunity for evil is just delicious
|
hahahah heheh meh uhhh
|
|
|
|
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10603
|
It still surprises me when people don't get these things off the bat. Still, they're fun to explain to people who don't get them. Maybe we should have a thread! So I'm going to eat some crow. Apparently, I never thought about it for any length of time because just now I gave it about ten seconds and had that "ding" moment somebody mentioned. Seems rather obvious now...sorry for the derail.
|
"...maybe if you cleaned the piss out of the sunny d bottles under your desks and returned em, you could upgrade you vid cards, fucken lusers.." - Grunk
|
|
|
Engels
Terracotta Army
Posts: 9029
inflicts shingles.
|
F13's work is done
|
I should get back to nature, too. You know, like going to a shop for groceries instead of the computer. Maybe a condo in the woods that doesn't even have a health club or restaurant attached. Buy a car with only two cup holders or something. -Signe
I LIKE being bounced around by Tonkors. - Lantyssa
Babies shooting themselves in the head is the state bird of West Virginia. - schild
|
|
|
Margalis
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12335
|
Many readers refused to believe that switching is beneficial. After the Monty Hall problem appeared in Parade, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine claiming that vos Savant was wrong. (Tierney 1991) Even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still do not accept that switching is the best strategy Fun fact: I remember reading those Parade magazine things. It was fucking hilarious. You literally had PhD math guys writing in saying that vos Savant was completely wrong, it was so obvious, etc etc. It went on for quite a while. Probability is often counter-intuitive. Really a lot of math is counter-intuitive, so it's often dangerous to rely on neat solutions or "common sense." Here's a similar problem. Say you have three hotels in a row of different levels of quality. You stop by the first one and it's ok but you decide to move on and check out the second one. The second one is worse than the first. Should you continue on to the third hotel? (You can't go back - one way street!) It seems like the common sense answer is it doesn't matter, the third one could be worse or better, who the hell knows? But imagine the hotels are lettered A B C where A is the best and C is the worst. The possible situations you are in (second hotel worse than the first): ABC BCA ACB You could be in any of the three above scenarios. In 2 of them going to third hotel is a win. That really does not make intuitive sense but them's the breaks. Also about Monty Hall - it doesn't matter if he knows which doors have goats behind them. If he opens the door with the prize behind it then you just lost and you can't switch so the whole question is moot. If he opens a door with a goat behind it you should switch. The easy way to think about it is the chart of vos Savant's in that wikipedia page. There are only 3 possibilities! Just iterate through them. If you want you can add in cases where the host fucks up and reveals the prize, it doesn't change anything. Also: When I first heard this problem I thought as Cyrrex does now, then someone explained the million door version and I had that "aha" or lightbulb moment. It comes down to 1 of 3 ONLY if you dont change doors.
This is the single best strategy for wrapping your head around math and logic problems: consider degenerate cases. Change the numbers involved to 0 or 1 or a billion and what is happening is usually much more clear than using reasonable numbers. Also read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Innumeracy-Mathematical-Illiteracy-Consequences-Vintage/dp/0679726012Edit: Sorry for nerding it up with more off-topic talk, but as the child of a math professor and a match teacher I was biologically compelled to post.
|
|
« Last Edit: September 02, 2011, 11:13:20 PM by Margalis »
|
|
vampirehipi23: I would enjoy a book written by a monkey and turned into a movie rather than this.
|
|
|
apocrypha
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6711
Planes? Shit, I'm terrified to get in my car now!
|
as the child of a math professor and a match teacher I was biologically compelled to post.
Are you saying that mathematical ability is genetically inherited? Cos them thar's fightin words.
|
"Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1915.
|
|
|
|
|