Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Time Everyone “Corrected” the World’s Smartest Woman (2015)

priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 331 posts

Re: The Time Everyone “Corrected” the World’s Smartest Woman (2015)

#61

Post by jVinc »

jml7c5 wrote: post #20

From reading the problem as posed in the article, the confusion seems similar to the "plane on a treadmill" thing, where people are interpreting the premise of the problem differently. (In plane on a treadmill: "the treadmill moves backwards @ -1 * plane airspeed" vs "the treadmill moves backwards to keep plane airspeed at 0". In this: "the host will open the door at random and in this example it happen to have a goa…

> vs "the treadmill moves backwards to keep plane airspeed at 0".

You might be correct in thinking people misunderstand it as that, but that's physically impossible, so I don't think you can argue that people have some sort of alternate understanding under which they are actually correct. That's just one type of wrong reasoning people might apply to the problem.

Add to that, in your hypothetical understanding of Monty Hall, that actually still doesn't change anything. Because even if the host picks a door completely at random, you still should always switch, it would just sometimes be the case that the host goes "ohh, that's to bad, I revealed the car and you can't win it now", but obviously that doesn't do anything to change your odds, because you're always better off or the same by switching, it's just in the unfortunate cases you'r switching from 0% change to 0% chance. But that doesn't do anything to change the fact that if he didn't reveal the car you're still going from 33% to 66%.

Re: The Time Everyone “Corrected” the World’s Smartest Woman (2015)

#62

Post by swayvil »

BelenusMordred wrote: post #30
crooked-v wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually is the family name on her mother's side, though she changed it to that back from her mother's married name (Mach).

> Mach Amusing that her alternate name still exudes intellect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mach

She's a savant who's named savant.

Am I the only person who finds this funny?

---

Mommy, I want to be a savant when I grow up.

But you are already a savant.

You know what I mean.

Re: The Time Everyone “Corrected” the World’s Smartest Woman (2015)

#63

Post by umvi »

If I were her I would have used the opportunity to get rich.

"Note to the 10,000 people who sent me letters saying I'm wrong: I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is, are you? I will pay anyone that can experimentally prove I am wrong $1000. If you can't do it, you owe me $1000. You have to put up the money before attempting any experiments. Put up or shut up."

Re: The Time Everyone “Corrected” the World’s Smartest Woman (2015)

#64

Post by TchoBeer »

dllthomas wrote: post #34
javajosh wrote: post #23

So this is at least in part about the "Monty Hall Problem" and why it's solution not intuitive. The article missed an important angle: when the host opens a door, he's giving you more information , which explains why it's better to switch. If you're the host, you need to know which door the car is behind to do your job 2/3 of the time, to avoid revealing it. It's this quality of unexpected information exchange that I…

Interestingly, if the host picks randomly (and if he reveals the car, you... start over, or you get the car, or you get nothing, or ... it doesn't matter because it happens not to have happened in the time we're considering) then you are faced with a 50/50 chance.

I don't understand how this could be. If you start over when the host picks the car, then isn't that the same as the host picking the goat every time, i.e. the same as the host knowing.

Re: The Time Everyone “Corrected” the World’s Smartest Woman (2015)

#65

Post by School-Cotton »

kingsuper20 wrote: post #21

I'm familiar with the problem and my intuition is still wrong. I wonder if you couldn't design a gambling machine that has a variant of the Monty Hall problem built-in favoring the house (naturally).

Imagine there were 1000 doors, one of which had a prize, and you picked #123. The host then opened all the other ones except #456, and they all had goats. Should you switch?

Re: The Time Everyone “Corrected” the World’s Smartest Woman (2015)

#67

Post by [deleted] »

paulcole wrote: post #49
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #13

There are a number of things I like about the monty hall problem. There's the history, the unintuitiveness, the subtle easy-to-screw-up nature of probability problems, the calculation, the sociology, and the overconfidence of wrong experts. Most of all, it's the calculation vs intuition that I like. You can do the calculation, or run simulations and prove correctness. In fact, it would be much harder to be so widely…

My favorite thing is when somebody says, “what if I want to win the goat?” Because you instantly know they’re a contrarian for its own sake.

[deleted]

Re: The Time Everyone “Corrected” the World’s Smartest Woman (2015)

#68

Post by [deleted] »

tebou wrote: post #47
crooked-v wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand, that would just be overcomplicating the matter, because most modern video gambling machines just use a set number of wins per time interval.

That is incorrect, and most likely illegal anywhere gambling is legalized. The machines are random, with no enforcement on wins per time interval. Source: I work in the industry.

[deleted]

Re: The Time Everyone “Corrected” the World’s Smartest Woman (2015)

#69

Post by gonehome »

dllthomas wrote: post #34
javajosh wrote: post #23

So this is at least in part about the "Monty Hall Problem" and why it's solution not intuitive. The article missed an important angle: when the host opens a door, he's giving you more information , which explains why it's better to switch. If you're the host, you need to know which door the car is behind to do your job 2/3 of the time, to avoid revealing it. It's this quality of unexpected information exchange that I…

Interestingly, if the host picks randomly (and if he reveals the car, you... start over, or you get the car, or you get nothing, or ... it doesn't matter because it happens not to have happened in the time we're considering) then you are faced with a 50/50 chance.

Yeah - and at least for me this was part of the confusion. The problem is often stated incorrectly.

Critically the host always removes a goat.

If the person presenting the problem just says “the host opens one of the doors”, but doesn’t specify he’s always revealing a bad door then it’s not clear why that matters.

The many door example makes it easy to intuit as well.

Re: The Time Everyone “Corrected” the World’s Smartest Woman (2015)

#70

Post by inopinatus »

TchoBeer wrote: post #64
dllthomas wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, if the host picks randomly (and if he reveals the car, you... start over, or you get the car, or you get nothing, or ... it doesn't matter because it happens not to have happened in the time we're considering) then you are faced with a 50/50 chance.

I don't understand how this could be. If you start over when the host picks the car, then isn't that the same as the host picking the goat every time, i.e. the same as the host knowing.

Well, I don't know. Advantage moves to the contestant: they close the doors, but everything's gonna remain in the same place. Steathily repositioning an automobile on a soundstage might be possible (albeit difficult), but just you try moving the damn goat
Post reply on HN