site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   2235 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for September 6, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Of course they matter, they increase the chance that the gold picked in round one was from the double gold box dramatically, which itself hugely increases the odds of round 2 is also gold.

They dont matter because the question is conditioned on that we already picked a box with a gold coin.

The question is what the odds are that we picked the box with both gold and silver, given that we have a box with at least a gold coin in it. There is 1/3 with gold and silver, hence the probabilty of the second coin being gold is 2/3. You could increase the amount of silver coins by infinity and it wouldn't matter. You're picking boxes, not coins.

Yes. But the fact that w already picked a box with the gold coin tells us that it was almost certainly the double gold box and therefore that the probability of the gold second coin is even higher.

No, it tells us nothing. The question is conditioned on a gold coin having been picked.

We didn't pick a box at random, the gameshow host did and revealed a gold coin.

We didn't pick a box at random, the gameshow host did and revealed a gold coin.

I don't think this is the problem statement, which says:

You reach your hand into one of the boxes

I don't see anything about a game show host doing anything. Obviously, I agree that the problem turns out differently if a game show host is involved and able to make a choice at any of the steps.

You're right, I got lost in my own example and convinced myself of my wrong intuition which was correct for the original amount of coins.

And if you picked a gold coin you almost certainly picked it from the double gold bucket…I’m unsure what the issue is here.

You almost certainly did if there actually was a genuine round one, but there wasn't. It was defined that the coin drawn was gold.

Imagine it like this: you have three boxes but the game starts with the gameshow host walking up to a box, looking into it and picking out a gold coin. Does it matter how many silver coins there are?

You cannot look into the box, you cannot weigh the boxes, or shake them, or anything like that, so the situation is not equivalent to a gameshow host looking into the box and deliberately rummaging through and picking the one gold coin that is there.

Let's turn up the amount of silver coins. Imagine there are 1000 silver coins and one gold coin in the third box. You pick one coin out of a box and it turns out to be gold. Which is more probable, a) that you happened to pick the one and only gold coin from a 1001 coins, or b) that you picked one gold coin from a box that contains only two gold coins?

Remember, there are a 1000 ways to pick a silver coin from the third box, in which case we don't end up in the scenario where we are picking a second coin. It is only the very rare occurrence when we happen to pick the third box and pick the one gold coin out of a 1001 coins that we are in the scenario where picking a second silver coin is possible.

You're right. I got the right answer by accident and then started convincing myself my explanation was the right one.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats