It's also because he wants the student to be motivated by his own answer. Not only that, the professor wants other students to see he's also motivated by the students answer and hopes it encourages the other students to answer questions and be motivated to learn more than just the basics.
@@TeamDoc312 I agree the professor is trying to inspire and it’s probably a very awesome inspirational movie. Newton stealing something sounds legit but in this short there is a jump cut straight to the Monty hall problem which is a very over studied problem in math and am almost certain it has nothing to do with newton and what he stole. Let me know what I’m missing from the story so we can all learn together thank you for the comment. And perhaps I’ll watch the movie.
It's funny the first time this problem entered into my life was on Brooklyn 99. "Are you trying to Monte Hall me? Do I need to teach you eighth grade statistics?"
Fun fact. (a couple related ones actually) I'm an engineeer and 'engineering statistics' is a class we have to take. Now, *usually* having 'engineering' before a class name means the class is a harder version. Not so with statistics. Basically, there are a lot of sub-topics in statistics that engineers very simply do not need. For what we use it for, a good 1/3rd of the discipline is simply not useful to us, meaning we straight up skip a bunch of stuff. One of the most important equations we DO use, is an equation for calculating the tolerances needed for all the parts in a product that need to fit together so that each one will almost always fit correctly when put together. Say you have, a gun barrel that needs to be 1/2 in in diameter and it needs to slide onto a piece of the gun tightly. You need *two* tolerances here. One for the barrel itself, and one for the fit to the other piece. Making those two tolerances work together was A LOT harder than it sounds. The gun company owner found a way to plug the two into his rather simple equation. The thing spits out a new tolerance for the barrel that makes it so ANY barrel that is in tolerance will fit on any of the other piece that is in tolerance. I know that doesn't sound all that impressive but trust me. That man's equation literally changed manufacturing in almost ALL industries forever.
This really depends on job function and not really true for several. Examples: Manufacturing engineering (six sigma, lean, so forth) and Quality engineering (sampling, Cpk, probability, normality, transforms) use quite a bit of statistics. As does reliability engineering and many others. Although, it is true that most schools teach "engineering statistics" which is primarily (as I remember it) about understanding interest rates, maximizing profits and understanding probability of defects.
@@dcasanc Yeah, that's true. I don't think we covered lean, but I think we at least touched on all of the others you mentioned, especially defects and sampling since those are important for multiple disciplines. Six sigma was towards the end of the class I believe. This also depends on the school I suppose.
He doesn't mention here that when the Monty Hall Problem was answered by a woman (Marilyn vos Savant) in a public column she was heavily ridiculed. Her peers and lessers said things like "There is no such thing as female logic" even after she used three columns to explain her proof.
The host must open one door and cannot open either your door, or the door with the car (the host knows where the car is). All possibilities and outcomes after you choose door 1: Car is behind 1 - host opens one of the other doors to reveal a goat, if you switch you get the other goat and lose. Car is behind 2 - host is forced to open door 3 to reveal a goat, if you switch you get the car. Car is behind 3 - host is foced to open door 2 to reveal a goat, if you switch you get the car. The only way you lose by switching is if you selected the car in the first place which is a 1/3 chance. Therefore you have a 2/3 chance by switching.
But you'd have a 2/3 chance anyway right? Basically the only thing the host did was guarantee that it wasn't the third door. Maybe I just don't get it LOL
@@Welovemousse It's more... think that we live in 3 different dimensions, in one dimension is in the fist one, the second in the second door, and the third in the last door. In one universe, change the door is a mistake cause the host could choose any door with a goat, but in two realities the host MUST open only ONE door because the other one has the car In one reality (we choose car) the host select one random door In two realities (we choose goat) the host is forced to open an especific door because the other has the car Is more probably live in reality 2 and 3 than 1 in a 66,7%
I need to talk to someone about this. But i am not to concerned. Seems like there are presumptions that door 3 would have been been opened at all, if it was never opened it would have been a 1/2 chance, what if there was a door 4 or 5, does that increase your probability or reduce it or remain the same?
There are 2 things I think get in the way of most people's understanding of this problem. 1. They "reset" the percentages after the door is opened ("I had a 1-in-3, or 33%, chance at the beginning, but now I have a 1-in-2, or 50% chance"). That's inaccurate. It would be true if it were random and reset, but the game isn't reset. You've gained information and the prizes stay where they are. Your odds after the reveal are the SAME as they were at the start. 2. They view it in terms of winning ("there is a 33% chance I picked the right door''). I think the trick is to look at from the losing perspective. Yes, there is a 33.3% chance you picked the right door...but there is a 66.7% chance you picked the WRONG door. In other words, you've LOST on the first pick 2 out of every 3 tries. The odds are that you lost, that you picked wrong, right at the start. So, on the 1-in-3 chance you did pick the car, the host could open EITHER other door (as they both have goats). You switch and you lose. But remember, the odds are that you did NOT pick the car to start with. There's a 2-in-3 chance you picked a goat. Say you picked door 3. The host can't open yours, and he can't open the car. He can ONLY open the 1 other goat door. So, if the car is behind 2, he has to open 1. Then you switch to 2 and win. Likewise, if the car was behind 1, the host can only open 2, and you switch to 1 and win. Switching wins 2 out of 3 times--because you were statistically, most likely to be wrong to begin with. And being wrong in Round 1 of the game is an advantage because it constrains the host's options with regards to which door they can open. You only need to win at the end, not all the way through, and this is a prime case where starting the game poorly is very much to your advantage.
Thank you. I am embarrassed by how hard it was for me to understand this after graduating first in my dept in college and all that... thought I just... got incredibly dumb after working a corporate job for a few years. Actually I still think that's accurate, so thanks for the help. 😂
But why wouldn't the percentage reses tho? Yeah information has been given and one of the choises was not the answer but doesn't that just go up to 50/50 because there are only two choices left? The probability of the choice being higher than the other choice is only when that choice was given another information proving that it's more likely to be correct than the other. Am I tripping or what
@@weebershooter7151 You got 33% chance of choosing right, which means you had 67% of having chosen wrong. 67% chance that the car is in the doors you didn't choose. The car is still 67% chance in the door that you didn't choose even if the wrong door was already opened, the probability doesn't reset. Why doesn't it reset? Because that would be like flipping a coin again after you're already holding it in your closed fist. Or shuffling a deck again after you already got your cards.
@urakkam-kr5uq Doesn't make sense to me. Isn't it 50/50 now? You have two options, chances can increase only depending on your assumption that the Host has your best interest in mind. So pretty much, after opening the first door you know that the car isn't there, and the host is kinda giving you a hint you chose the wrong one too, that could explain 66.7%. Or does it increase because he was actually given 2 chances and additional hint on the same task?
@@zhengistasbolatov8480 It's best not to think about which door has the car, but rather whether your current door has a car or goat. Your chance of picking the car in the first pick is 1/3, your chance of picking a goat on the first pick is 2/3, nothing about that chance changes after the reveal, there is still a 1/3 chance that your door has the car behind it, and a 2/3 chance it has a goat behind it, since there's only one other option it must have a 2/3 chance of a car and a 1/3 chance of a goat. Edit: Another way of thinking that often helps with certain types of statistics problems is increasing the number of variables. Say there's 100 doors, one has a car the others have goats, you pick one door, the host opens 98 doors, all with cars, now it's clearer that you should switch than in the original problem.
@@zhengistasbolatov8480 Without host opening a goat door, when you choose a goat door and change it there are 2 scenarios: You can come across car door and win or you can come across another goat door and lose. Host's behavior of opening a goat door everytime eliminates the second one and guarantees that when you choose goat door and change you'll 100% come across car door. This advantage is what increases your chance from 33% to 66%. There are two goat doors at first so, your chance of winning when you change is 2/3.
People really need to remember that even if you follow the best method, you still have 1/3 chance of losing. A lot of people seem to be thinking as if by switching they are certain to win...
I get what you’re saying. But unfortunately all of these channels have to do this otherwise these clips get taken down for copyright purposes. The dumbest thing is they it Hollywood actually was smart they would work with these channels and give them permission so that scenes like this could go viral and people would want to go back and watch those movies
I always disagreed with this scene. The stats are obviously correct but if the host know where the prize is the game changes. It's not chance it's chess
@johneaston8314 if the host knows where the car is and only offers the switch to the contestant when they originally picked the car is chess, if he offers it always, you are definitely more likely to win the car if you always switch.
@@MrT------5743 You're still only referring to the probability. The issue with that equation is you're only allowing one metric as input. If the host knows where the car is you're going to be looking for tells to see if he's lying, if he's hiding something, etc. It's a polynomial regression problem
Marilyn vos savant solved this problem years ago and everyone bashed her for being wrong then all these math professors did there research and realized she was right and apologized to her
"Basic maths led Ben to win a brand new goat" Explanation: I'll explain Monty Hall solution quickly, since you choose one out of the three doors randomly you have 33% chance of guessing right and 67% of guessing wrong, after the host opens a goat door you would be left with a goat and a car which seems like a 50/50 chance BUT if you guessed right at first and switch you will lose, if you chose wrong at first and switch you will win, if you remember you have 33.33% of guessing right the first time and 66.67% of guessing wrong which means by switching you have betters odds.
@@stock_movie1875the bad thing is he didn't have a 66% chance either. Yeah when there were three doors it was 33.3%. But when it went to two doors it was a 50% chance. His odds didn't double because now there's two doors instead of three
@@user-zw7rq8ys9h actually it does because the original 3rd door is there and now you know what is behind it making your chances of having guessed correctly proportionally higher.
@@mattiamarchese6316 That's really not a uniquely American movie thing. It just so happens that America makes the plurality of popular movies in the world.
maybe its for 8th graders now but it wasnt at the time when it's first came up. many people didnt answer it as "i would switch the door". only 13% of them did actually. the pool included some mathematicians and physicists etc.
id argue that if im asked wheter i want to switch or not, yeah, if i pick switch, the choice is a 50% chance of being correct - but not switching is a choice aswell, which also has a 50% chance. hence both options are, atleast stastically, equally valuable, no? EDIT: this is actually completely wrong, as the original author of the comment said. Pleae stop correcting me, thanks
@@ItIsJan No. Think of it expanded - Ten doors. You pick one, he then opens eight with goats and asks if you want to switch. The odds are you didn't guess right the first time. The same applies: 2 out of 3 times, the prize will be in one of the boxes you didn't choose - so switching is the best option.
@@waltlock8805 ooh yeah now it makes sense, thinking about it with a larger quantity made it click.. you picked the bad door at first and switch -> you get the good door you picked to good door at first and switch -> you get the bad door the chance to get the bad door in the beginning is 2/3, getting the good one is 1/3, hence switching is the better option, you are right!
@@ItIsJanfrom what i understood is that you have 66% chance at guessing right (because you know not to choose Door 3 and then choice between Door 1 and 2 is 33% as well). I however dont understand why Switching your choice from Door 1 to Door 2 is gonna change anything.
It makes sense if the door picked to be opened early was _not_ done at random. The bigger issue of the Monty Hall Problem is that there are assumptions that must be made, which are not stated openly (and thus not reducible to a pure mathematical abstract). The host must always open a door with a goat, and it can't be the one the player chose, and there must be linearity between the picks. It's counterintuitive because the outcome space then has four solutions, two of which lead to winning the car, and two to losing. _If_ the assumptions above hold true, however, then the probability of each of those solutions become unequal (for 1/6, 1/6, 1/3, 1/3, lose-lose-win-win respectively).
The movie is called "21" by the way. It's based on a true story about a group of college math majors and their professor who created a group who goes to Las Vegas to cheat at Black Jack for a lucrative amount of money. Edit: ALRIGHT! I GET IT! Counting cards isn't TECHNICALLY cheating! Jesus Mary and Joseph, you all act like you're the first people to correct me! I appreciate the likes, but goddamn people, read the replies before you think you're the first person and all of human history to correct me!
Not “cheating” if you learn how to play the game better than the casino can. You keep track of the high cards in comparison to the low cards. If there’s a substantial difference, you bet more money. But then you gotta know basic strategy, deviations, when to raise your bet, etc. it’s not easy
No way the dude from Advanced Warfare became a college professor 😭😭 Edit: I’m not usually one to do edits on comments but holy shit, thanks for 5.7k likes one 1 DAY!
It’s easier understood if you increase the number of doors. For our example lets say there’s 1000 doors and only 1 winning door. You choose one at random that has a 1/1000 chance of being the winning door. The host then opens 998 losing doors and leaves one door closed and offers for you to switch. Think about it. Is it more likely that you chose the only winning door out of a 1000 - right off the bat, or would the only remaining door have a better chance? When you first made your choice, the chance of picking the correct door was 1/1000. After the host reveals the 998 losing doors, the probability of your chosen door being correct remains at 1/1000, while the probability of the unopened door being correct increases to 999/1000. So, switching doors gives you a higher chance of winning, 999/1000 versus 1/1000. --- Edit: There’s been some resistance and confusion around this. A lot of it comes from the assumption that it should instead be 50/50 then Because why wouldn’t it be right? two doors! The thing is, there’s a bias/weight to one option over the other, and it’s caused by our first choice. (I’ll be going over it in my other perspective below) That’s what makes it not 50/50 I wanted to give another perspective that should make it even clearer why that isn’t the case. Here’s my preferred follow-up explanation that feels most direct with why swapping is better Let’s go with 1,000 doors for this example too The first event, the choice, effectively creates two groups. Group A: Only your chosen door. 0.1% chance of containing the car door Group B: Every door you did NOT choose. 99.9% chance of containing the car door. Eliminating the goat doors from Group B would not change whether or not the car door was in Group B after our first choice And if it is in Group B, the car door has to be the last door standing, mandatorily, since all the wrong doors are eliminated. Now our second decision comes in. The decision effectively has us bet whether the car door was in our first choice by staying (Group A) [0.1%], or bet that it was not in our first choice by swapping (Group B) [99.9%]
If you still dont understand, think about it like this: In the 999/1000 scenarios you chose the goat, the only other door the gameshow would leave is the one with a car. So 999 times out of 1000 you'd want to switch.
Ok but the Monte hall problem was actually solved by a woman, if I remember right she wrote a magazine article about it. A shit load of people, some of whom with PHDs wrote in to tell her she was wrong, even though she actually was 100% right.
Because she was wrong due to a single flaw in the problem that is always ignored. The moment you get to pick again it resets the odds to 50/50. If you never got to pick again, the odds would be 66/33 as she proved since the odds were always 66/33, just because your now aware that half of the 66 is wrong doesn't change it as the odds were locked in at the pick. A repick creates new odds due to new variables as the opened door should be ignored entirely, it is no longer part of the set as it doesn't add any useful information to your new decision, the variables changed (1 was eliminated) which altered the odds. If the variables remained the same the odds would remain the same, but for that to be the case the 3rd door would need to be closed again and the prizes shuffled.
@@cgi2002 The odds of you having chosen the right door won't change after the fact. Not changing your initial choice still has 1/3 chance of being the right one. The remaining door has therefore 2/3 chance of being the right one.
The guy leaning on his hand in the two supporting shots played Tim the badass US Marshall sniper in Justified. I don't remember his name but he was great in Justified!
As a "real businessman", no the fuck I would not. It would make more sense to take the car, sell it, and buy 100 goats. You'd probably still have enough left over to cover a few years of feed and the medical expenses.
Give a man a car, and he shall take the burden of taxes from the IRS. Give a man a goat, and he only bears the expenses if he so chooses to spare the costs on the goat.
Here is another way to think about it. First, understand that the host ALWAYS gives you a chance to switch and ALWAYS eliminates the one door that you did NOT pick and does NOT have the car. The host is not choosing that door at random. The host knows where the car is. Statistically, the opening of one of the doors is not relevant. You are choosing one out of 3 doors. The host then asks you to either stick with your original choice (1/3) or instead you get to “switch” by opening BOTH of the other doors (2/3). This is the key. You aren’t swapping your one door for one door. You are swapping one door for TWO doors. This is why your odds of winning the car go from 1/3 to 2/3 if you switch. Again, if you switch you get to open BOTH of the other doors, it’s just that the host tried to confuse you by pre-opening one of them so you think your chances are 50/50.
This is important, if the host didn't always have to reveal a goat door, he could simply open a goat door more frequently when there player selected the car to add more ambiguity to the situation. Like opening a goat door 50% when you select the car and only 30% when select a goat.
This is the correct take. There was missing information in the original premise, therefore the protagonist either knew the problem and solution beforehand, or invented some information and got lucky, both of which make him look way less smart
He LITERALLY SAYS "the host knows where the car is." So...OBVIOUSLY he picks a goat door every time, since he didn't pick the car door he knows the location of and there is only one that has the car. 34 likes on yours...and two comments saying the same thing, with likes themselves. Humans are doomed.
@@benjaminlanzotti1374 You are wrong and manueldi2990 and others are right. The clip also says, "The host DECIDES to open another door." You are assuming that the host has no choice, and is required to open a door showing a goat. This added assumption, contradicting the clip, is one of the ones used in the standard argument for a 2/3 winning chance. Without adding this assumption to the version in this clip, the host might only offer a chance to switch when the person chooses the car. In the original show, the host sometimes didn't offer a chance to switch, and just showed that the first door hid a goat. Don't feel too bad, though. Most people who remember that switching is supposed to win 2/3 don't remember exactly why. People often give an incomplete and incorrect statement of the problem, then add assumptions when trying to justify the answer they remember but don't understand.
For anyone confused. In an event where no switching is allowed you have a flat 1/3 chance to win. This is static and set in stone as there is always two goats and always one car. Then when switching is introduced two events emerge: A) you picked the 1/3 chance to find the car. Switching would then make you lose B) you picked the 2/3 chance to find a goat. Switching then gives you the win. Ignore the fact that there are 2 doors at the end of the problem. The probability of the guess gets locking in once you first choose a door. And since you know your odds are 1/3 of winning and 2/3 of losing, it means that statistically you’re more likely to win by switching, as all switching does is flip both odds around. Ie, your 1/3 odds of guessing the car become a 1/3 odds of losing it in a switch, and your 2/3 odds of not getting the car become a 2/3 odds of winning it
@@muse5722It "locks in" once the gameshow host alters the problem by opening a door. That action is dependent on the choice you make initially, and it does "lock in" that probably
The odds increase both ways with 1/3 if one is eliminated from the choice regardless of your choice. Giving you equal odds. I don't see this theory making sense
The reasoning of the 2nd choice statistics is based on the 1st choice. There was a 33.3% chance for the initial choice being correct and a 66.6% chance it’s incorrect. Thus the removal of another incorrect choice leads to the 66.6% chance falling into the other option. Think of the 2nd choice as being able to pick both 2 & 3 instead of 1 because they essentially combined the two doors in the situation. Between the 3 situations there is you picked correctly initially at 33% and you picked incorrectly at 66%. That is what it basically equates to.
It took me some thinking, but I get it now. Percentage talk just confused me tbh. Had to think about each of the scenarios. Basically only 2 scenarios for first pick, car and goat. If you guess car correct, then his reveal doesn’t really help so it’s 50/50. If you first guess wrong with goat, then his reveal automatically tells you which door has the car. One switch is 50/50 and the other switch is guarantee giveaway. And since you can pick between 3 doors, he’s giving away the answer for 2 out of 3 picks and not really changing anything with the 1 correct guess. It’s more likely that you’ll guess wrong in which case he is giving you the answer.
@@MrNoName7474 technically there isn’t 50/50 because the 2nd choice is based on first. If there was no 3rd choice from the start it would be 50/50. The 2nd choice could be either other door but the host opens one so it comes down to your 1st choice was 66% likely to be incorrect. So that remaining door becomes a 66% correct. If the host opened one wrong door before your initial 1st choice then it would be 50/50 chance.
Unless the host actually does have patterns and tricks that you know, but he doesn't know that you know, in which case the probabilities might change in the specific situation..
Group 1: the 1/3 doors you picked Group 2: the 2/3 doors you didn’t pick Basically you’re either choosing to pick 1 door or 2 doors, if 1 is opened and you switch it’s the same as if you were offered to choose both of the doors in group 2.
Movie: 21 Streaming: Google Play, Amazon Prime, Apple TV Plot: Ben is new in the college (I think it was Stanford or something like that) and he is really smart. He is invited to this “club” in which the headteacher secretly takes a few students to Las Vegas to gamble, but they actually cheat because they can count the cards (it’s hard to explain) and it turns out Ben is really good at it (I won’t say anymore) Cast includes: Kevin Spacey, Jim Sturgess & Laurence Fishburne
I love the comments. Reminds me why math is a core subject. Not because you need it, but because it's how you find people who can handle more complex abstract problems.
Biggest BS ever. This is exactly what school told us. Keep following their agenda 👍🏼 thank god I can find the slope of something that I will never need to do in life but I had to learn taxes on my own and how interest rates work. Useless curriculum and even more useless of a comment because if you have no interest in the subject you aren’t gaining anything from it anyways
@@imanoldurango8213lmao there are jobs that don't require any real understanding of mathematics that aren't fast food worker. So either you are actually an idiot or he hit a nerve with his comment probably because you pride yourself on your mathematical ability and are severely lacking in other more practical areas. Essentially it's your was of battling your insecurity by pretending you are better or are of more value than the next person when in reality if you understand the world you know that's not true. No most people (including plenty of architects engineers and physicists) dont need to find the slope of something (including manually) because we now have machines that can do everything you could do and more except 10 million times better and faster than you or any human ever could. Soon enough all of my and your knowledge and expirence in these types of fields will amount to nothing except creative and unorthodox input as I could teach a child to perform a pattern on a computer to preform and solve equations in seconds that would take you minutes or hours. Soon your mind will be irrelevant or should I say more irrelevant than it already is and you'll actually have to pretend you're superior based on something that can't be done and learned by a child with a computer. That's the problem I came across with all these STEM people I've met in classes you are all so egocentric and insecure that you need to cling onto the idea that because you are in a certain field you are better. There are fields that are just as difficult if not far more difficult to understand get a grasp of and preform in real life that you wouldn't be able to do but because we're going to a nice school and we are in "hard" classes we are the best? Give me a break. This is why we are all so limited and dumb overall there are important things to learn outside of various math and science classes as well.
@@NotSorryBaby Yeah, true, but I don't see it any differently from having 1M doors and then he opens all but 2. He says "this is your door, do you want to change it or not", even somehow it's a 50/50, while it's the same result. Edit: I have risen far beyond and have accepted my ignorance I had many moons ago
Easy way to explain this. There's 3 scenarios: 1- Goat 2- Goat 3- Car 1- Goat 2- Car 3- Goat 1- Car 2- Goat 3- Goat Assuming you start with 1 always and that the host reveals a door other than yours that has a goat, switching will let you win 2 out of these 3 scenarios.
Same as not switching. Right? Like in his example if he opens door 3 and you chose 1. There is a 50 50 chance at the point you ate making the new choice. To me it seems like a new chance of 50% once you are offered a new choice. It's not the same choice anymore so it is just a 1/2 as 1 out of 2 options have the prize.
But you have a higher chance of getting a car if you switch. Because you atent guaranteed scenario 3. Its between 1, 2 or 3. So you have a higher odds to get a car since 2 out of the 3 scenarios would give you the car. @traviso7810
@@maxwellhubbard2749 Scenario 1 is off the table impossible once the host opens door #3; how is that scenario still included? In order to justify switching, we aren’t looking for the scenario in which a goat is behind door #1 (which would be 2/3 if you include the now-defunct scenario)), but one in which the car is behind door #2.
@@iteachlit okay so scenario 1, 2, and 3 (the initial guess and the actual car placements) are all equally likely. however, the host is not constrained to only opening door #3, in scenario 1 the host will open door #2, while in scenario 2 the host will open door #3, and lastly in scenario #3 the host can chose either. so the first scenario is justified, and since all 3 scenarios are equally likely you have 2/3 as your odds of winning if you switch. another example, lets supposed there are 100 doors instead with a single car. you chose door #1 and with that you have 1/100 odds of getting it right, the host opens 98 other doors that isnt the car, your odds is now 99/100 since probability always adds up to 1. im sure you can understand that in no world the first door is a 50/50
After spending 20 minutes, I understood the solution. The key is, no matter whatever we pick, the host opens a door with a goat behind. Suppose there are 3 doors - 1,2,3. Let's assume we pick Door 3. Now the host will open Door 1/2. He gives us a chance to switch. Possibility 1: the car was behind Door 3 itself. Host will open Door 1/2. Switching to 2/1 will LOSE the car. Possibility 2: the car was behind Door 2. Host can only open Door 1 since Door 3 is what we have selected. Switching to 2 will WIN the car. Possibility 3: the car was behind Door 1. Host can only open Door 2. Here switching will again WIN the car. So, out of 3 possibiliies, Switching will WIN the car twice. Hence 2/3 or 66.67% probability. This is an example of Monty Hall problem.
This is only applicable when he already haven't opened the door or picked any specific door number to open, If he has already opened a door it 50% probability that any remaining door has car
May ALLAH grant you success and guide you in your life U see i have searched before when i saw this movie but couldn't find any reasonable answer and i thought they were really stupid but now i know thanks to you and everything makes sense... All love and respect and i will call you sir eventhough i haven't called any one that before🌹🌹🌹
@@DivyarajMoolya wtf I came back to square one!!! He already opened the door and that idiot is saying its 66...and 33.... and all over the internet they are saying the same thing... But i didn't care they didn't make any sense but this comment made perfect sense... If you know what you are talking about i hope you will prove it just like lambodar7 did.
If he opens door 3 you got 33.3 of the equation that is now known..... Considering you would chose door 1, knowing 3... 1+3 would be 66.7% upon your logic.... Okay... then you decide to switch to door #2, it has its 33.3, door 3 its 33.3 known as well... so you got 66.7 with door 2 as well? Option 1 + option 2 = 133% probability? The introduction of the 3rd door being known removes and unknown variable from the equation.... its not 1/3 chances now, its 1/2 chances now, you will never chose the door that was shown with the undesired result.... so its never gonna be an option or a probability.
For those who don’t understand the statistics: Suppose Monty didn’t open the goat door, and instead offered you to either open just your door, or every door except that one, and you’d win the car if it’s in one of those two doors. *It’s the exact same outcome.* Opening one goat door doesn’t change a thing. You already knew at least one goat was among the unpicked doors.
Thank you Marilyn Vos Savant for solving this riddle decades ago and enduring years of ridicule from a plethora of men in mathematics who took years to understand that she was right and they were wrong. Marilyn is still the modern G.O.A.T. of mathematics.
The monty hall problem is equivalent to the older three prisoners problem, which are functionally just the old bertrand box paradox, which was described and solved by Bertrand Russel in the 19th century, almost 200 years before her answer. What Marylin V. Savant did wasnt too spectacular, she correctly responded to a problem which can be solved just carefully applying the high school level math, but many men still felt like they had to prove her wrong instead of having the humility to inquire on how she reached her conclusion and explain it to them. Now imagine how much of an up hill battle academically succesful woman like Marie Curie or Emmy Noether had to climb. Not only for getting themselves recognized, but to also shift the paradigm of their fields entirely through their contributions.
You mean after all the sexual assault of children and young actors? He used his power as a hollywood elite to goon in movie theaters with young actors right next to him? Crazy to defend all that abuse and just call it a debacle. Spacey is a vile human who deserves consequences.
How do you so effortlessly hit EVERY DAMN NOTE, my good man??? The perfect rasps, the perfect cracks - they're not even overdone!! Honest to God, ear candy. If you were to post on Spotify you'd be at the top of my Spotify Wrapped. I don't think I've ever subscribed to anyone so fuckin' fast, bro. Keep it up!💙
For anyone confused, read this: the number of potential outcomes is 9 with 6 out of 9 potential ways to win the car. You only have 3 possible combinations of options to choose from at the beginning: 1. Car behind door 1. In this scenario, if you pick door 1 and switch, you lose. If you pick door 2 or 3 and switch, you win. 2. Car behind door 2. If you pick door 2 and switch, you lose. If you pick door 1 or 3 and switch, you win. 3. Car behind door 3. You pick door 3 and switch, you lose. You pick door 1 or 2 and switch, you win. 9 total possible scenarios with 6 out of 9 chances to win, AKA 2/3rds AKA 66.7% probability to win. Because the host always has to do the same thing every time, if you also do the same thing every time, your probability of winning will become fixed and mathematically predictable. If both you and the host lose the burden of choice, you gain the ability to predict the future based on all possible variants of the same simulation. It's a simple matter of statistics and mathematics. Stop thinking of each choice as independent. By removing the element of agency and replacing it with the predictability of standardized programming (AKA don't think like a human, think like a computer), you can now predict the future based on probability alone.
This is what happens in colleges, children are brain-washed into thinking in a certain way and abandoning common sense. There are three doors, and the host is only going to reveal a door that the contestant has NOT chosen and that does not contain the car. Based on this fact, the choice is reset and there is an equal 50% chance that the car will be behind either door, and you do not increase your chances of picking the winning car by changing your choice to door 3. This type of overanalytical thinking is how they can convince otherwise intelligent students that gender is subjective and not ingrained in DNA.
This isn't going to make anyone less confused 😅 Simply put there's a 1/3 chance you're right and a 2/3 chance you're wrong, once there's only two doors left there's a 1/3 chance you were right to begin with, and a 2/3, chance that the other door is the right one (It makes more sense on a bigger scale, if there were 99 wrong doors and he opened 98 of them, there's a 1% chance you were right before, and a 99% chance the other one is right) Edit: having read more closely your explanation does make perfect sense, at first it just looked like a lot of jargon
@@joelmacinnes2391 When there are only two doors, knowing that a goat will always be chosen BECAUSE IT IS NOT A RANDOM EXPERIMENT AS THE MATH EXAMPLE DICTATES, its a 50/50 chance of being a goat or car. There is no advantage to switching because IT IS NOT A RANDOM EXPERIMENT you will ALWAYS BE SHOWN THE GOAT.
Fun Fact: this was in fact a game show called ‘Lets Make A Deal’. I believe the show was forced to shut down due to people figuring out this problem called ‘The Monty Hall Problem’. I did this for a my Math Night project in school and got a full grade because the judge couldn’t understand my problem yet when she looked it up it was true.
Perhaps the original version. The revamped version started in 2009 with Wayne Brady and is still running. I remember the original from when I stayed home from school in the 60s.
I will try to explain this as simply as possible (with the assumption that the host always opens a door with a goat) Note: The door numbering below doesn't really matter, it is just for visual interpretation: After you make the first choice (Door 1) you have probability of winning 33% which automatically means that the combined probability of the car being behind Door2 or Door3 is 67%. Then the host opens Door 3 (goat) which automatically drops the probability of the car being behind Door 3 to 0% .. BUT... the probability of the car being behind Door 2 or Door 3 is still 67%, so this automatically means there is 67% chance your car is behind Door 2 (67% + 0%) = 67%. It has nothing to do with mind games. The "host" is powerless, he can't influence the probability if you decide to switch.
For the people still wondering why this is correct: imagine the show has 100 doors. 1 car, 99 goats. You pick one door and after that 98 goats are revealed. Would you rather keep your 1/100 door or switch to the more likely option? For those still wondering, the host won't open the door with the car behind it. Otherwise there wouldn't be a gamble to begin with.
To be clear, an important part about the monty hall problem is that the gameshow host will never choose to reveal the door with the car behind it. It's only then that switching doors nets you the probability of all the doors revealed.
If the gameshow host was able to pick the car door you would still switch, only to the door the host picked. How does this affect your initial chance of 1/3 to be right? lets say we have 5 doors. 1/5 that your door has the prize. 4/5 that your door does not. 1 door gets removed from the equation. so now 3 doors share the 4/5 probability. 4/5 = 12/15. 12/3=4, so 4/15 for each of those 3. the initial door still has 1/5 or 3/15 chance to be right. The host being wrong or right does not affect your odds, I fail to see how it is important.
Nope. It's literally 50/50. Quit playing mind games. 1/2 is 50% no matter how much stupidity you insert in front of it. Trolls. Don't troll, it's a sin and hell is not eternal according to biblical experts
@@Quimothit does affect your odds of getting it right and switching because you know you’re right. Statistics in that case imply that you don’t know the right answer. If I know the answer I can make it 100% to get it right
Average mathematician: “tell me something I don’t already know” proceeds to be enthralled by something he already knows.
lol rephrase!
Tell me something most people here don’t know.
I thought the "something I don't already know" was the part about "Newton stole it". I don't see where it's said he already knew that.
I think he was thrilled by the idea that someone answers what he think is unusual because he's so smart no one could over top him lol
It's also because he wants the student to be motivated by his own answer. Not only that, the professor wants other students to see he's also motivated by the students answer and hopes it encourages the other students to answer questions and be motivated to learn more than just the basics.
@@TeamDoc312 I agree the professor is trying to inspire and it’s probably a very awesome inspirational movie. Newton stealing something sounds legit but in this short there is a jump cut straight to the Monty hall problem which is a very over studied problem in math and am almost certain it has nothing to do with newton and what he stole. Let me know what I’m missing from the story so we can all learn together thank you for the comment. And perhaps I’ll watch the movie.
Music needs to be louder. I can still hear some of the dialog.
This is exactly what I was thinking. LOL. :-D
@@iamshashigoud6592 I would consider that a boomer smiley (respectful)
Facts
😅😅😅😅
😂😂😂
Professor- “wrong! All the doors contained goats and you were never going to win the car in the first place!”
Wrong-you’ve been in a coma for 3 years, wake up.
But you see Professor, I preferred a goat from the start. Check mate.
@@johnproxov8664😂😂😂
Now you are just teaching economics
Every comment is unrelated but this one is funny at least
“21”
This movie was awesome.
Morpheus is in it, too!
BUT.... He has hair
Did i give away too much
Based on a true story too. The book goes more into detail 💯
Yea and he wasn't offering blue and red pills but he was offering a** whoopings😂😂
Lol 😂@@arthurbeckett2510
I love that I can refer to Laurence Fishbourne as Morpheus now as opposed to Ike Turner. Him as Ike Turner, damn that's a hard watch.
It's funny the first time this problem entered into my life was on Brooklyn 99. "Are you trying to Monte Hall me? Do I need to teach you eighth grade statistics?"
I dont know, do I need to teach you seventh grade statistics?
Booooonnnneee !!!!!!
@@alireza-fn1iwI don't know, do I have to teach you SIXTH grade statistics?
at the end the answer was " you needed to boon" 🤣🤣🤣🤣
FRR also ended in one of the funniest moments ever
“I’ll switch to door number 3. 100% chance of getting a goat”
yeah man..
is the G O A T..
😂
It's actually 33.33% for door no. 1
@@aqplaysgames not if they show you the goats behind it right?🤣
Awesome movie great story
Fun fact. (a couple related ones actually) I'm an engineeer and 'engineering statistics' is a class we have to take. Now, *usually* having 'engineering' before a class name means the class is a harder version. Not so with statistics. Basically, there are a lot of sub-topics in statistics that engineers very simply do not need. For what we use it for, a good 1/3rd of the discipline is simply not useful to us, meaning we straight up skip a bunch of stuff.
One of the most important equations we DO use, is an equation for calculating the tolerances needed for all the parts in a product that need to fit together so that each one will almost always fit correctly when put together.
Say you have, a gun barrel that needs to be 1/2 in in diameter and it needs to slide onto a piece of the gun tightly. You need *two* tolerances here. One for the barrel itself, and one for the fit to the other piece.
Making those two tolerances work together was A LOT harder than it sounds. The gun company owner found a way to plug the two into his rather simple equation. The thing spits out a new tolerance for the barrel that makes it so ANY barrel that is in tolerance will fit on any of the other piece that is in tolerance.
I know that doesn't sound all that impressive but trust me. That man's equation literally changed manufacturing in almost ALL industries forever.
Interesting fact and very cool.
I wonder how many people are going to read this... I read all of it but understood only ~30% of it. Lol 🤣
@@madihashaikh4787 Lol, it is kind of hard to explain.
This really depends on job function and not really true for several. Examples: Manufacturing engineering (six sigma, lean, so forth) and Quality engineering (sampling, Cpk, probability, normality, transforms) use quite a bit of statistics. As does reliability engineering and many others.
Although, it is true that most schools teach "engineering statistics" which is primarily (as I remember it) about understanding interest rates, maximizing profits and understanding probability of defects.
@@dcasanc Yeah, that's true. I don't think we covered lean, but I think we at least touched on all of the others you mentioned, especially defects and sampling since those are important for multiple disciplines. Six sigma was towards the end of the class I believe. This also depends on the school I suppose.
He doesn't mention here that when the Monty Hall Problem was answered by a woman (Marilyn vos Savant) in a public column she was heavily ridiculed. Her peers and lessers said things like "There is no such thing as female logic" even after she used three columns to explain her proof.
wait i know that name, she's the one with the highest iq
The most appropriately named woman of all time
Fuck this dude, but he played a damn good cod villain
On skibidi
Mr. Irons
One of my fav villains in cod for me
He was an incredible actor tbf, he’s just an absolute garbage human being.
@@Kazakh_Airlines_Flight_1907right behind *MENENDEZ*
The host must open one door and cannot open either your door, or the door with the car (the host knows where the car is). All possibilities and outcomes after you choose door 1:
Car is behind 1 - host opens one of the other doors to reveal a goat, if you switch you get the other goat and lose.
Car is behind 2 - host is forced to open door 3 to reveal a goat, if you switch you get the car.
Car is behind 3 - host is foced to open door 2 to reveal a goat, if you switch you get the car.
The only way you lose by switching is if you selected the car in the first place which is a 1/3 chance. Therefore you have a 2/3 chance by switching.
The first time that I understand the logic, thanks
But you'd have a 2/3 chance anyway right? Basically the only thing the host did was guarantee that it wasn't the third door. Maybe I just don't get it LOL
@@Welovemousse It's more... think that we live in 3 different dimensions, in one dimension is in the fist one, the second in the second door, and the third in the last door. In one universe, change the door is a mistake cause the host could choose any door with a goat, but in two realities the host MUST open only ONE door because the other one has the car
In one reality (we choose car) the host select one random door
In two realities (we choose goat) the host is forced to open an especific door because the other has the car
Is more probably live in reality 2 and 3 than 1 in a 66,7%
I need to talk to someone about this. But i am not to concerned. Seems like there are presumptions that door 3 would have been been opened at all, if it was never opened it would have been a 1/2 chance, what if there was a door 4 or 5, does that increase your probability or reduce it or remain the same?
Why cannot the host open the door with the car? It isn't stated that the host knows where the car is
There are 2 things I think get in the way of most people's understanding of this problem.
1. They "reset" the percentages after the door is opened ("I had a 1-in-3, or 33%, chance at the beginning, but now I have a 1-in-2, or 50% chance"). That's inaccurate. It would be true if it were random and reset, but the game isn't reset. You've gained information and the prizes stay where they are. Your odds after the reveal are the SAME as they were at the start.
2. They view it in terms of winning ("there is a 33% chance I picked the right door'').
I think the trick is to look at from the losing perspective.
Yes, there is a 33.3% chance you picked the right door...but there is a 66.7% chance you picked the WRONG door. In other words, you've LOST on the first pick 2 out of every 3 tries. The odds are that you lost, that you picked wrong, right at the start.
So, on the 1-in-3 chance you did pick the car, the host could open EITHER other door (as they both have goats). You switch and you lose.
But remember, the odds are that you did NOT pick the car to start with. There's a 2-in-3 chance you picked a goat. Say you picked door 3. The host can't open yours, and he can't open the car. He can ONLY open the 1 other goat door. So, if the car is behind 2, he has to open 1. Then you switch to 2 and win. Likewise, if the car was behind 1, the host can only open 2, and you switch to 1 and win.
Switching wins 2 out of 3 times--because you were statistically, most likely to be wrong to begin with. And being wrong in Round 1 of the game is an advantage because it constrains the host's options with regards to which door they can open.
You only need to win at the end, not all the way through, and this is a prime case where starting the game poorly is very much to your advantage.
Thank you. I am embarrassed by how hard it was for me to understand this after graduating first in my dept in college and all that... thought I just... got incredibly dumb after working a corporate job for a few years.
Actually I still think that's accurate, so thanks for the help. 😂
But why wouldn't the percentage reses tho? Yeah information has been given and one of the choises was not the answer but doesn't that just go up to 50/50 because there are only two choices left? The probability of the choice being higher than the other choice is only when that choice was given another information proving that it's more likely to be correct than the other. Am I tripping or what
@@weebershooter7151 You got 33% chance of choosing right, which means you had 67% of having chosen wrong. 67% chance that the car is in the doors you didn't choose. The car is still 67% chance in the door that you didn't choose even if the wrong door was already opened, the probability doesn't reset. Why doesn't it reset? Because that would be like flipping a coin again after you're already holding it in your closed fist. Or shuffling a deck again after you already got your cards.
@@overlordcalda i don't really get this. Maybe I'll understand when I get older
3 doors, 2 goats and a car , great movie !!
Gaslighting at its finest, when the person doing it doesn't even realise they're gaslighting.
Bro went from CEO of ATLAS to a math proffesor💀💀💀
*Bro went from a maths professor to CEO of Atlas
This is from the movie _21,_ which came out before _Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare._
No… you are just a child
Then he went to President of the United States. (House of Cards)
what a nice math teacher, i hope he doesn't blow up a golden bridge and bring warships
"Thank you for another 33.3 chance"
"And the car was behind door number 1"
"FUCK"
lol
@urakkam-kr5uq source please? for that large number of trials?
@urakkam-kr5uq Doesn't make sense to me. Isn't it 50/50 now? You have two options, chances can increase only depending on your assumption that the Host has your best interest in mind. So pretty much, after opening the first door you know that the car isn't there, and the host is kinda giving you a hint you chose the wrong one too, that could explain 66.7%. Or does it increase because he was actually given 2 chances and additional hint on the same task?
@@zhengistasbolatov8480 It's best not to think about which door has the car, but rather whether your current door has a car or goat. Your chance of picking the car in the first pick is 1/3, your chance of picking a goat on the first pick is 2/3, nothing about that chance changes after the reveal, there is still a 1/3 chance that your door has the car behind it, and a 2/3 chance it has a goat behind it, since there's only one other option it must have a 2/3 chance of a car and a 1/3 chance of a goat.
Edit:
Another way of thinking that often helps with certain types of statistics problems is increasing the number of variables. Say there's 100 doors, one has a car the others have goats, you pick one door, the host opens 98 doors, all with cars, now it's clearer that you should switch than in the original problem.
@@zhengistasbolatov8480 Without host opening a goat door, when you choose a goat door and change it there are 2 scenarios: You can come across car door and win or you can come across another goat door and lose. Host's behavior of opening a goat door everytime eliminates the second one and guarantees that when you choose goat door and change you'll 100% come across car door. This advantage is what increases your chance from 33% to 66%. There are two goat doors at first so, your chance of winning when you change is 2/3.
People really need to remember that even if you follow the best method, you still have 1/3 chance of losing. A lot of people seem to be thinking as if by switching they are certain to win...
Yep, and that is why Vegas is so very wealthy.
Movie name is 2 Goats 1 Car
stop lying. The film name is "two girls, one cup" It is a metaphor for the movie clip. Google it
Bro 😂😂😂😂
This guy doesn't even care😂
lol
no the name of the movie is 21
Can you turn up the music? I can almost hear what they're saying...
legit 💀
Never heard of copyright?
WHAT??? Can't hear you
I get what you’re saying. But unfortunately all of these channels have to do this otherwise these clips get taken down for copyright purposes. The dumbest thing is they it Hollywood actually was smart they would work with these channels and give them permission so that scenes like this could go viral and people would want to go back and watch those movies
@xjudoflip7381 yeah, because what I want to do more than anything while watching a video is read. Kind of defeats the purpose...
This music drives me crazy
That is very true
Sometimes things like music prevent automatic, copyright detectors from flagging the videos
Usually it doesn't really bother me that much but I really like this movie, this scene in particular, so it's like fucking nails on a chalkboard.
No, you just have poor self-control and let something you can control, like volume of sound, annoy you.
Don't be a boy.
It’s for copyright 🤡🤡🤡
The Monty Hall Problem
Make the music louder next time please; and please keep it the same
Why not keep the dialogue the same and make the music 1 louder?
@@ianstopher9111 no, we need more of this music...better yet, mute the dialogue and just blast this music on endless repeat.
Without the music this clop cant be on TH-cam
"What you're seeing here, is Advanced Knowledge"
-Irons
Underrated asf comment
bayes theorem
Technical it’s wrong and right
"But that's just statistics."
"Never put a 'but' in front of statistics."
I always disagreed with this scene. The stats are obviously correct but if the host know where the prize is the game changes. It's not chance it's chess
Jaden Williams fan I see
@johneaston8314 if the host knows where the car is and only offers the switch to the contestant when they originally picked the car is chess, if he offers it always, you are definitely more likely to win the car if you always switch.
@@MrT------5743 You're still only referring to the probability. The issue with that equation is you're only allowing one metric as input. If the host knows where the car is you're going to be looking for tells to see if he's lying, if he's hiding something, etc. It's a polynomial regression problem
*earthquake
But that's just statistic?
"exactly"
Student: "nah i was just kidding"
Marilyn vos savant solved this problem years ago and everyone bashed her for being wrong then all these math professors did there research and realized she was right and apologized to her
"Basic maths led Ben to win a brand new goat"
Explanation: I'll explain Monty Hall solution quickly, since you choose one out of the three doors randomly you have 33% chance of guessing right and 67% of guessing wrong, after the host opens a goat door you would be left with a goat and a car which seems like a 50/50 chance BUT if you guessed right at first and switch you will lose, if you chose wrong at first and switch you will win, if you remember you have 33.33% of guessing right the first time and 66.67% of guessing wrong which means by switching you have betters odds.
😂
His chances increased but were never 100
I don't get it... How is it that he's more likely to win? Isn't it just 50-50. @@stock_movie1875
@@stock_movie1875the bad thing is he didn't have a 66% chance either. Yeah when there were three doors it was 33.3%. But when it went to two doors it was a 50% chance. His odds didn't double because now there's two doors instead of three
@@user-zw7rq8ys9h actually it does because the original 3rd door is there and now you know what is behind it making your chances of having guessed correctly proportionally higher.
I like that they introduce the Monty Hall problem in a high level university class as if this is 8th grade.
In American movies you can seem very smart without saying anything that a 14 years old wouldn't understand.
@@mattiamarchese6316 That's really not a uniquely American movie thing. It just so happens that America makes the plurality of popular movies in the world.
@@SeraphsWitness yes, still the film is set in the USA.
maybe its for 8th graders now but it wasnt at the time when it's first came up. many people didnt answer it as "i would switch the door". only 13% of them did actually. the pool included some mathematicians and physicists etc.
@@cankoroglu1908 by the time this movie came out, it wasn't an area of confusion anymore. That's my point.
the background music is needed badly in this clip so that you can't understand the conversation
Kevin isn't picking any doors anymore lol
He will.
lmao
I think the Department of Corrections will pick them for him.
The classic "Monty Haul" problem - yes his answer is correct, you should switch your choice.
id argue that if im asked wheter i want to switch or not, yeah, if i pick switch, the choice is a 50% chance of being correct - but not switching is a choice aswell, which also has a 50% chance. hence both options are, atleast stastically, equally valuable, no?
EDIT: this is actually completely wrong, as the original author of the comment said. Pleae stop correcting me, thanks
@@ItIsJan No. Think of it expanded - Ten doors. You pick one, he then opens eight with goats and asks if you want to switch. The odds are you didn't guess right the first time. The same applies: 2 out of 3 times, the prize will be in one of the boxes you didn't choose - so switching is the best option.
@@waltlock8805 ooh yeah now it makes sense, thinking about it with a larger quantity made it click..
you picked the bad door at first and switch -> you get the good door
you picked to good door at first and switch -> you get the bad door
the chance to get the bad door in the beginning is 2/3, getting the good one is 1/3, hence switching is the better option, you are right!
@@ItIsJanfrom what i understood is that you have 66% chance at guessing right (because you know not to choose Door 3 and then choice between Door 1 and 2 is 33% as well). I however dont understand why Switching your choice from Door 1 to Door 2 is gonna change anything.
It makes sense if the door picked to be opened early was _not_ done at random.
The bigger issue of the Monty Hall Problem is that there are assumptions that must be made, which are not stated openly (and thus not reducible to a pure mathematical abstract). The host must always open a door with a goat, and it can't be the one the player chose, and there must be linearity between the picks. It's counterintuitive because the outcome space then has four solutions, two of which lead to winning the car, and two to losing. _If_ the assumptions above hold true, however, then the probability of each of those solutions become unequal (for 1/6, 1/6, 1/3, 1/3, lose-lose-win-win respectively).
The movie is called "21" by the way. It's based on a true story about a group of college math majors and their professor who created a group who goes to Las Vegas to cheat at Black Jack for a lucrative amount of money.
Edit: ALRIGHT! I GET IT! Counting cards isn't TECHNICALLY cheating! Jesus Mary and Joseph, you all act like you're the first people to correct me! I appreciate the likes, but goddamn people, read the replies before you think you're the first person and all of human history to correct me!
They have never "cheated" -_-
@@PolishChessPlayer Legally no, but counting cards is technically cheating. At least enough for them to ask you to leave.
@@forge4119 how using brain is "cheating"? Casinos are the ones who offer winning game.
@@forge4119 It's what the casinos do. Also, you don't necessarily get kicked for counting. You get kicked for winning
Not “cheating” if you learn how to play the game better than the casino can. You keep track of the high cards in comparison to the low cards. If there’s a substantial difference, you bet more money. But then you gotta know basic strategy, deviations, when to raise your bet, etc. it’s not easy
They dropped all the charges against him but you are right, he is a great actor, can sing, can dance and can play a great villain.
He was also the villain in See No Evil hear No Evil before he was a name.
The Usual Suspects was a great movie. I've heard he is broke and his life is ruined even though he was exonerated, which is really sad.
He also played a great teacher in Pay it froward.
K-Pax was also great
@vadamov12 oh yes, I forgot about that. That one was awesome. He was good, you wanted it all to be real and true.
It's "21". Great movie. I have it on DVD. Thanks.
No way the dude from Advanced Warfare became a college professor 😭😭
Edit: I’m not usually one to do edits on comments but holy shit, thanks for 5.7k likes one 1 DAY!
He really turned his life around man, we all deserve a second shot
And bro was that campaign not absolutely amazing??
For someone that owns his own military I feel like he would’ve been that before
@@Jaden_Alvarezhave you been playing war thunder lately if not the snail is not happy
@@Ghost-kv3vj I’ve been playing wt everyday for the past 3 years
@@Papa_Slimfr top ten imo loved it, matter of fact, im gonna go reinstall it bc of this comment, thanks man
It’s easier understood if you increase the number of doors.
For our example lets say there’s 1000 doors and only 1 winning door.
You choose one at random that has a 1/1000 chance of being the winning door.
The host then opens 998 losing doors and leaves one door closed and offers for you to switch.
Think about it. Is it more likely that you chose the only winning door out of a 1000 - right off the bat, or would the only remaining door have a better chance?
When you first made your choice, the chance of picking the correct door was 1/1000. After the host reveals the 998 losing doors, the probability of your chosen door being correct remains at 1/1000, while the probability of the unopened door being correct increases to 999/1000. So, switching doors gives you a higher chance of winning, 999/1000 versus 1/1000.
---
Edit: There’s been some resistance and confusion around this.
A lot of it comes from the assumption that it should instead be 50/50 then
Because why wouldn’t it be right? two doors!
The thing is, there’s a bias/weight to one option over the other, and it’s caused by our first choice. (I’ll be going over it in my other perspective below)
That’s what makes it not 50/50
I wanted to give another perspective that should make it even clearer why that isn’t the case.
Here’s my preferred follow-up explanation that feels most direct with why swapping is better
Let’s go with 1,000 doors for this example too
The first event, the choice, effectively creates two groups.
Group A: Only your chosen door. 0.1% chance of containing the car door
Group B: Every door you did NOT choose. 99.9% chance of containing the car door.
Eliminating the goat doors from Group B would not change whether or not the car door was in Group B after our first choice
And if it is in Group B, the car door has to be the last door standing, mandatorily, since all the wrong doors are eliminated.
Now our second decision comes in.
The decision effectively has us bet whether the car door was in our first choice by staying (Group A) [0.1%], or bet that it was not in our first choice by swapping (Group B) [99.9%]
That's the easiest explaination I ever heard about this problem
This is the best explanation I've heard yet
If you still dont understand, think about it like this:
In the 999/1000 scenarios you chose the goat, the only other door the gameshow would leave is the one with a car.
So 999 times out of 1000 you'd want to switch.
Thank you I couldn’t understand how they got the percentage 66 but now I understand
Sorry if I am being stupid but why wouldn’t the choice change to 50/50 because now there are 2 doors?
Edit: nvm I finally understand it
These types of videos are not bad ones in a while it always made me smile to watch you laughing with your friends
My psych teacher taught us this to teach us about how people are likely to stay with their choice since people naturally are anxious about change
He solved the riddle and the teacher felt him up after class.
🤣
He was acquitted on all charges bud. Never happened.
@@zendoclone1He’s from an industry which has the main purpose of lying for profit. Not to mention he is very wealthy. An acquittal means little
@nathanaeldavid6238 Buddy, you are every kind of backwards there is. I'd pray for you, but you don't even know what that means.
@@zendoclone1So OJ was innocent! good to know…
A goat is an easy 75-200 bucks but goat milk is also worth a lot so do with that information what you will
Exactly. Would you prefer to get a car and let it drink the fuel or get the goat and drink its milk.
That and fucking a car is just weird.
😂 you think on a different dimension
You still have to feed it
You would have to get it pregnant to get milk 😂
Ok but the Monte hall problem was actually solved by a woman, if I remember right she wrote a magazine article about it. A shit load of people, some of whom with PHDs wrote in to tell her she was wrong, even though she actually was 100% right.
Because she was wrong due to a single flaw in the problem that is always ignored. The moment you get to pick again it resets the odds to 50/50.
If you never got to pick again, the odds would be 66/33 as she proved since the odds were always 66/33, just because your now aware that half of the 66 is wrong doesn't change it as the odds were locked in at the pick.
A repick creates new odds due to new variables as the opened door should be ignored entirely, it is no longer part of the set as it doesn't add any useful information to your new decision, the variables changed (1 was eliminated) which altered the odds. If the variables remained the same the odds would remain the same, but for that to be the case the 3rd door would need to be closed again and the prizes shuffled.
Marylynn
@@cgi2002 The odds of the car being behind one of the doors you didn't choose don't magically change depending on if they're open or not.
@@louisfrancisco2171 correct, but since there are now fewer doors to choose from the odds adapt to reflect that.
@@cgi2002 The odds of you having chosen the right door won't change after the fact.
Not changing your initial choice still has 1/3 chance of being the right one. The remaining door has therefore 2/3 chance of being the right one.
The guy leaning on his hand in the two supporting shots played Tim the badass US Marshall sniper in Justified. I don't remember his name but he was great in Justified!
A real business man would take the goat
Fr, make goat cheese
As a "real businessman", no the fuck I would not. It would make more sense to take the car, sell it, and buy 100 goats. You'd probably still have enough left over to cover a few years of feed and the medical expenses.
Maybe if you're from Wales
@@Lusk7741give a man a car and he will eat for a day, teach him how to goat and he will car for the rest of his life
Give a man a car, and he shall take the burden of taxes from the IRS. Give a man a goat, and he only bears the expenses if he so chooses to spare the costs on the goat.
This movie has one of my all-time favorite quotes that goes for daily life as well.
"Always account for variable change."
pls tell what's the name of the movie
@@kaniizzzkaaits called 21.
What is the name of the movie?
@@huzaifakabul7574its 21 its all about blackjack winner winner chicken dinner
@@huzaifakabul7574it’s called 21.
Wow, such skill and artistry!!! Thank you
We need Teachers like him who don't get angry when they are being corrected by students but instead encourage it
The movie name is 21 if you didn't know
Thanks!
It’s Godfather
And its fantastic it’s a true story about card counting really worth the watch
@@johnieday5186one of my favorite movies. Seen it so many times
Thank you!
"What you're seeing is advanced warfare."
Cod aw moment
Anyone knows when they will release AW part2?
🗣️🔥
You're*
Good reference
Dude I searched through the comments hoping someone would see him from cod aw
Kevin Spacey is the boss. I have never seen in my life an actor as fascinating as Kevin Spacey.
you get a goat, and you get a goat, everyone gets a goat
Holt and Kevin having a field day with this movie
Movie name you somuvabeetch 😂😂 tell me
Please shut this damn song off 😂😂😂😂
They can’t. It’s to get by the copyright censors
@@akmi1931oh shiit so that’s why they keep blasting this particular song?
You can turn it off yourself by clicking the loudspeaker icon.
Bro this is me when a fellow teen asks me to profile a specific crime scene scenario lmao
I first learned this on Mythbusters of all places
"so sorry sir it was door number one!"
It was?
@@StorytimeAdventures03 he was j joking
@@StorytimeAdventures03 Always Has been
always door num 1
"You're a mathematician Harry"😂😂😂
"You're a mathmagician Harry"
The Monty Hall problem incorporated into a movie. Amazing
Here is another way to think about it. First, understand that the host ALWAYS gives you a chance to switch and ALWAYS eliminates the one door that you did NOT pick and does NOT have the car. The host is not choosing that door at random. The host knows where the car is.
Statistically, the opening of one of the doors is not relevant. You are choosing one out of 3 doors. The host then asks you to either stick with your original choice (1/3) or instead you get to “switch” by opening BOTH of the other doors (2/3).
This is the key. You aren’t swapping your one door for one door. You are swapping one door for TWO doors. This is why your odds of winning the car go from 1/3 to 2/3 if you switch.
Again, if you switch you get to open BOTH of the other doors, it’s just that the host tried to confuse you by pre-opening one of them so you think your chances are 50/50.
It should include the information that the host knows where the car is, and always opens a dummy then makes the offer to switch.
This is important, if the host didn't always have to reveal a goat door, he could simply open a goat door more frequently when there player selected the car to add more ambiguity to the situation.
Like opening a goat door 50% when you select the car and only 30% when select a goat.
This is the correct take. There was missing information in the original premise, therefore the protagonist either knew the problem and solution beforehand, or invented some information and got lucky, both of which make him look way less smart
He LITERALLY SAYS "the host knows where the car is."
So...OBVIOUSLY he picks a goat door every time, since he didn't pick the car door he knows the location of and there is only one that has the car.
34 likes on yours...and two comments saying the same thing, with likes themselves.
Humans are doomed.
@@benjaminlanzotti1374 You are wrong and manueldi2990 and others are right. The clip also says, "The host DECIDES to open another door." You are assuming that the host has no choice, and is required to open a door showing a goat. This added assumption, contradicting the clip, is one of the ones used in the standard argument for a 2/3 winning chance. Without adding this assumption to the version in this clip, the host might only offer a chance to switch when the person chooses the car. In the original show, the host sometimes didn't offer a chance to switch, and just showed that the first door hid a goat. Don't feel too bad, though. Most people who remember that switching is supposed to win 2/3 don't remember exactly why. People often give an incomplete and incorrect statement of the problem, then add assumptions when trying to justify the answer they remember but don't understand.
@@douglaszare1215 HE LITERALLY SAYS THE HOST KNOWS WHERE THE CAR IS
For anyone confused.
In an event where no switching is allowed you have a flat 1/3 chance to win. This is static and set in stone as there is always two goats and always one car.
Then when switching is introduced two events emerge:
A) you picked the 1/3 chance to find the car. Switching would then make you lose
B) you picked the 2/3 chance to find a goat. Switching then gives you the win.
Ignore the fact that there are 2 doors at the end of the problem. The probability of the guess gets locking in once you first choose a door. And since you know your odds are 1/3 of winning and 2/3 of losing, it means that statistically you’re more likely to win by switching, as all switching does is flip both odds around. Ie, your 1/3 odds of guessing the car become a 1/3 odds of losing it in a switch, and your 2/3 odds of not getting the car become a 2/3 odds of winning it
True hero
Probability doesn't lock in
@@muse5722It "locks in" once the gameshow host alters the problem by opening a door. That action is dependent on the choice you make initially, and it does "lock in" that probably
only issue I have with this is it doesn't change anything, whether you answer is changed or not you the statistics aren't locked in
The odds increase both ways with 1/3 if one is eliminated from the choice regardless of your choice. Giving you equal odds. I don't see this theory making sense
The reasoning of the 2nd choice statistics is based on the 1st choice. There was a 33.3% chance for the initial choice being correct and a 66.6% chance it’s incorrect. Thus the removal of another incorrect choice leads to the 66.6% chance falling into the other option. Think of the 2nd choice as being able to pick both 2 & 3 instead of 1 because they essentially combined the two doors in the situation. Between the 3 situations there is you picked correctly initially at 33% and you picked incorrectly at 66%. That is what it basically equates to.
It took me some thinking, but I get it now. Percentage talk just confused me tbh. Had to think about each of the scenarios. Basically only 2 scenarios for first pick, car and goat. If you guess car correct, then his reveal doesn’t really help so it’s 50/50. If you first guess wrong with goat, then his reveal automatically tells you which door has the car. One switch is 50/50 and the other switch is guarantee giveaway. And since you can pick between 3 doors, he’s giving away the answer for 2 out of 3 picks and not really changing anything with the 1 correct guess. It’s more likely that you’ll guess wrong in which case he is giving you the answer.
@@MrNoName7474 technically there isn’t 50/50 because the 2nd choice is based on first. If there was no 3rd choice from the start it would be 50/50. The 2nd choice could be either other door but the host opens one so it comes down to your 1st choice was 66% likely to be incorrect. So that remaining door becomes a 66% correct. If the host opened one wrong door before your initial 1st choice then it would be 50/50 chance.
@@cinvogue4630 None of that made any sense to me, but I do understand why the switch is most likely your best bet.
This whole comment section is full of people who are confidently wrong. (The 50/50 people).
the movie is called 21
All these people trying to explain the Monty Hall problem and here you are the true one, the goat giving us the answer we want.
Thank you. ❤
Whats 9 + 10?
@@ThatOneSailingKidthe movie
@@seanmcmanus9656 it was a joke bro
@@ThatOneSailingKid21
21 is one of my all time favorite movies.
thank i get clowned all the time for this literally is one of my favorites as well i rewatch it all the time
10+9
The student's prize for getting the question right is to be groped by the teacher
whats the name of it?
@@usainohnmightyomega21 (2008)
Unless the host actually does have patterns and tricks that you know, but he doesn't know that you know, in which case the probabilities might change in the specific situation..
Josh Gad as an extra sitting next to him
My AP stats teacher showed us this movie… I cannot forget this scene
what's the name
@@futaro3883 21
21
Movie name: 21 (2008)
Thank you 😊😊
Based on true events, but they white washed the entire cast. They were Asian, not white
An exact ripoff of a Canadian movie called: The Last Casino (2004)
Exact ripoff.
@@Bradley-rq2mp 🤍
@@OGS2099 oh that's interesting
I should probably watch it 😃
Group 1: the 1/3 doors you picked
Group 2: the 2/3 doors you didn’t pick
Basically you’re either choosing to pick 1 door or 2 doors, if 1 is opened and you switch it’s the same as if you were offered to choose both of the doors in group 2.
Movie: 21
Streaming: Google Play, Amazon Prime, Apple TV
Plot: Ben is new in the college (I think it was Stanford or something like that) and he is really smart. He is invited to this “club” in which the headteacher secretly takes a few students to Las Vegas to gamble, but they actually cheat because they can count the cards (it’s hard to explain) and it turns out Ben is really good at it (I won’t say anymore)
Cast includes: Kevin Spacey, Jim Sturgess & Laurence Fishburne
I love the comments. Reminds me why math is a core subject. Not because you need it, but because it's how you find people who can handle more complex abstract problems.
Biggest BS ever. This is exactly what school told us. Keep following their agenda 👍🏼 thank god I can find the slope of something that I will never need to do in life but I had to learn taxes on my own and how interest rates work. Useless curriculum and even more useless of a comment because if you have no interest in the subject you aren’t gaining anything from it anyways
@@adrianzoto6435useless if you never use it. You’re obviously not an engineer or an architecture or a physicist. You’re probably a fast food worker.
@@adrianzoto6435you don’t need to find the slope of something because you’re never doing anything that requires it. Basically you’re doing menial work
@@imanoldurango8213 I do IT but let’s just assume things. Moron
@@imanoldurango8213lmao there are jobs that don't require any real understanding of mathematics that aren't fast food worker. So either you are actually an idiot or he hit a nerve with his comment probably because you pride yourself on your mathematical ability and are severely lacking in other more practical areas. Essentially it's your was of battling your insecurity by pretending you are better or are of more value than the next person when in reality if you understand the world you know that's not true.
No most people (including plenty of architects engineers and physicists) dont need to find the slope of something (including manually) because we now have machines that can do everything you could do and more except 10 million times better and faster than you or any human ever could.
Soon enough all of my and your knowledge and expirence in these types of fields will amount to nothing except creative and unorthodox input as I could teach a child to perform a pattern on a computer to preform and solve equations in seconds that would take you minutes or hours.
Soon your mind will be irrelevant or should I say more irrelevant than it already is and you'll actually have to pretend you're superior based on something that can't be done and learned by a child with a computer.
That's the problem I came across with all these STEM people I've met in classes you are all so egocentric and insecure that you need to cling onto the idea that because you are in a certain field you are better. There are fields that are just as difficult if not far more difficult to understand get a grasp of and preform in real life that you wouldn't be able to do but because we're going to a nice school and we are in "hard" classes we are the best? Give me a break. This is why we are all so limited and dumb overall there are important things to learn outside of various math and science classes as well.
Im fairly sure the professor is the CEO of a powerful private military company
That has some secret intentions
Called Atlas
That destroyed my arm in torture saying he “gave me that arm” that “second chance”
Yeah, he definitely is a evil mastermind who will stop at nothing to advance warfare for his own gain
If the car is behind door number one, will you still be given the opportunity to change doors?
The teacher's eyes suddenly sparks dollars.. that right there is his ticket to vegas..
My favorite part of the movie is when the song plays. I get super pumped when the cellos start.
“Ben, I need you to meet me in my office after class”
oh hell nah
Prof, gonna open Ben's doors
hehe
thats literally how the movie goes lol
Someone enlighten me pls.
This is actually a correct answer.
when I watched this movie I was still young seeing this clip makes me appreciate it even more
Movie: 21
It’s a super underrated movie and one of my favorites
I'm going to watch it because of this comment. 🙂
You will not be disappointed @@Maggdusa
@@Maggdusaamazing movie, you gonna enjoy it
aight imma watch
9 + 10?
*opens door #1* you missed the chance to have a car
Yes that happens 33.3% of the time
@@Ironiclobster69I see what u did there xd
@@Ironiclobster69 and yet, it became 50%
@@budgetarms no it didn't how are you this confident about something u are objectively wrong
@@NotSorryBaby Yeah, true, but I don't see it any differently from having 1M doors and then he opens all but 2. He says "this is your door, do you want to change it or not", even somehow it's a 50/50, while it's the same result.
Edit: I have risen far beyond and have accepted my ignorance I had many moons ago
The title of this video should be "someone sued me for sexual harassment, failed and ruined my career".
“Do I need to teach you…. Kindergarten statistics?”
Why does the teacher look like a gta character
Looks a bit like Michael doesn't he?
Yeah, Kevin Spacey played GTA and had his face done? Possibly?
whats the CEO and owner of Atlas doing in a college as a professor 😭
I fkn hate, the atlas corporation 💀
what is the movie or tv-series you talking about ?
@@user-ft4fo9ze3wit's from the game call is duty advanced warfare and the main villain owns a company called Atlas 😭
Clearly the mathematician never interact with a bussinessman, the host will move the goat to wherever door he picked😂
Easy way to explain this. There's 3 scenarios:
1- Goat 2- Goat 3- Car
1- Goat 2- Car 3- Goat
1- Car 2- Goat 3- Goat
Assuming you start with 1 always and that the host reveals a door other than yours that has a goat, switching will let you win 2 out of these 3 scenarios.
Same as not switching. Right? Like in his example if he opens door 3 and you chose 1. There is a 50 50 chance at the point you ate making the new choice. To me it seems like a new chance of 50% once you are offered a new choice. It's not the same choice anymore so it is just a 1/2 as 1 out of 2 options have the prize.
But you have a higher chance of getting a car if you switch. Because you atent guaranteed scenario 3. Its between 1, 2 or 3. So you have a higher odds to get a car since 2 out of the 3 scenarios would give you the car. @traviso7810
@@maxwellhubbard2749 Scenario 1 is off the table impossible once the host opens door #3; how is that scenario still included? In order to justify switching, we aren’t looking for the scenario in which a goat is behind door #1 (which would be 2/3 if you include the now-defunct scenario)), but one in which the car is behind door #2.
This makes my brain hurt
@@iteachlit okay so scenario 1, 2, and 3 (the initial guess and the actual car placements) are all equally likely. however, the host is not constrained to only opening door #3, in scenario 1 the host will open door #2, while in scenario 2 the host will open door #3, and lastly in scenario #3 the host can chose either. so the first scenario is justified, and since all 3 scenarios are equally likely you have 2/3 as your odds of winning if you switch.
another example, lets supposed there are 100 doors instead with a single car. you chose door #1 and with that you have 1/100 odds of getting it right, the host opens 98 other doors that isnt the car, your odds is now 99/100 since probability always adds up to 1. im sure you can understand that in no world the first door is a 50/50
After spending 20 minutes, I understood the solution. The key is, no matter whatever we pick, the host opens a door with a goat behind.
Suppose there are 3 doors - 1,2,3.
Let's assume we pick Door 3. Now the host will open Door 1/2. He gives us a chance to switch.
Possibility 1: the car was behind Door 3 itself. Host will open Door 1/2. Switching to 2/1 will LOSE the car.
Possibility 2: the car was behind Door 2. Host can only open Door 1 since Door 3 is what we have selected. Switching to 2 will WIN the car.
Possibility 3: the car was behind Door 1. Host can only open Door 2. Here switching will again WIN the car.
So, out of 3 possibiliies, Switching will WIN the car twice. Hence 2/3 or 66.67% probability.
This is an example of Monty Hall problem.
So many people getting confused here is coz they don't know that the house only opens the door that holds a goat .
This is only applicable when he already haven't opened the door or picked any specific door number to open, If he has already opened a door it 50% probability that any remaining door has car
May ALLAH grant you success and guide you in your life
U see i have searched before when i saw this movie but couldn't find any reasonable answer and i thought they were really stupid but now i know thanks to you and everything makes sense...
All love and respect and i will call you sir eventhough i haven't called any one that before🌹🌹🌹
@@DivyarajMoolya wtf
I came back to square one!!!
He already opened the door and that idiot is saying its 66...and 33.... and all over the internet they are saying the same thing...
But i didn't care they didn't make any sense but this comment made perfect sense...
If you know what you are talking about i hope you will prove it just like lambodar7 did.
If he opens door 3 you got 33.3 of the equation that is now known.....
Considering you would chose door 1, knowing 3... 1+3 would be 66.7% upon your logic....
Okay... then you decide to switch to door #2, it has its 33.3, door 3 its 33.3 known as well... so you got 66.7 with door 2 as well?
Option 1 + option 2 = 133% probability?
The introduction of the 3rd door being known removes and unknown variable from the equation.... its not 1/3 chances now, its 1/2 chances now, you will never chose the door that was shown with the undesired result.... so its never gonna be an option or a probability.
For those who don’t understand the statistics:
Suppose Monty didn’t open the goat door, and instead offered you to either open just your door, or every door except that one, and you’d win the car if it’s in one of those two doors.
*It’s the exact same outcome.* Opening one goat door doesn’t change a thing. You already knew at least one goat was among the unpicked doors.
Would you please add, what film it is? So I can watch it in full.
The movie is called “21”
Thank you Marilyn Vos Savant for solving this riddle decades ago and enduring years of ridicule from a plethora of men in mathematics who took years to understand that she was right and they were wrong. Marilyn is still the modern G.O.A.T. of mathematics.
The monty hall problem is equivalent to the older three prisoners problem, which are functionally just the old bertrand box paradox, which was described and solved by Bertrand Russel in the 19th century, almost 200 years before her answer.
What Marylin V. Savant did wasnt too spectacular, she correctly responded to a problem which can be solved just carefully applying the high school level math, but many men still felt like they had to prove her wrong instead of having the humility to inquire on how she reached her conclusion and explain it to them.
Now imagine how much of an up hill battle academically succesful woman like Marie Curie or Emmy Noether had to climb. Not only for getting themselves recognized, but to also shift the paradigm of their fields entirely through their contributions.
This response should have more likes. The dumb thing is that initially people like the professor portrayed in the clip though she was wrong.
Movie name
The movies called 21 for anyone interested
Thanks man
Thankjs!
The movie is good tho.. great ending
Thank you
👍🤩💝I’ve always loved Spacey as an actor. I hope he can make a full come back after the whole debacle. 🙏💝
You mean after all the sexual assault of children and young actors? He used his power as a hollywood elite to goon in movie theaters with young actors right next to him? Crazy to defend all that abuse and just call it a debacle. Spacey is a vile human who deserves consequences.
How do you so effortlessly hit EVERY DAMN NOTE, my good man??? The perfect rasps, the perfect cracks - they're not even overdone!! Honest to God, ear candy. If you were to post on Spotify you'd be at the top of my Spotify Wrapped. I don't think I've ever subscribed to anyone so fuckin' fast, bro. Keep it up!💙
For anyone confused, read this:
the number of potential outcomes is 9 with 6 out of 9 potential ways to win the car.
You only have 3 possible combinations of options to choose from at the beginning:
1. Car behind door 1. In this scenario, if you pick door 1 and switch, you lose. If you pick door 2 or 3 and switch, you win.
2. Car behind door 2. If you pick door 2 and switch, you lose. If you pick door 1 or 3 and switch, you win.
3. Car behind door 3. You pick door 3 and switch, you lose. You pick door 1 or 2 and switch, you win.
9 total possible scenarios with 6 out of 9 chances to win, AKA 2/3rds AKA 66.7% probability to win.
Because the host always has to do the same thing every time, if you also do the same thing every time, your probability of winning will become fixed and mathematically predictable. If both you and the host lose the burden of choice, you gain the ability to predict the future based on all possible variants of the same simulation. It's a simple matter of statistics and mathematics. Stop thinking of each choice as independent. By removing the element of agency and replacing it with the predictability of standardized programming (AKA don't think like a human, think like a computer), you can now predict the future based on probability alone.
This is what happens in colleges, children are brain-washed into thinking in a certain way and abandoning common sense. There are three doors, and the host is only going to reveal a door that the contestant has NOT chosen and that does not contain the car. Based on this fact, the choice is reset and there is an equal 50% chance that the car will be behind either door, and you do not increase your chances of picking the winning car by changing your choice to door 3. This type of overanalytical thinking is how they can convince otherwise intelligent students that gender is subjective and not ingrained in DNA.
This isn't going to make anyone less confused 😅
Simply put there's a 1/3 chance you're right and a 2/3 chance you're wrong, once there's only two doors left there's a 1/3 chance you were right to begin with, and a 2/3, chance that the other door is the right one
(It makes more sense on a bigger scale, if there were 99 wrong doors and he opened 98 of them, there's a 1% chance you were right before, and a 99% chance the other one is right)
Edit: having read more closely your explanation does make perfect sense, at first it just looked like a lot of jargon
@@joelmacinnes2391 When there are only two doors, knowing that a goat will always be chosen BECAUSE IT IS NOT A RANDOM EXPERIMENT AS THE MATH EXAMPLE DICTATES, its a 50/50 chance of being a goat or car. There is no advantage to switching because IT IS NOT A RANDOM EXPERIMENT you will ALWAYS BE SHOWN THE GOAT.
It doesnt matter if you switch or not
I am confused... Cos I don't understand what it has to do with Newton?
Fun Fact: this was in fact a game show called ‘Lets Make A Deal’. I believe the show was forced to shut down due to people figuring out this problem called ‘The Monty Hall Problem’. I did this for a my Math Night project in school and got a full grade because the judge couldn’t understand my problem yet when she looked it up it was true.
The host was named Monty Hall....
I’ll take “Shit that Didn’t Happen” for $600.
@@HeartThief21 That is Jeopardy, not Lets make a deal.
Afaik, Lets make a deal rarely, if ever, offered this exact situation, so thats definitely not why the show ended.
Perhaps the original version. The revamped version started in 2009 with Wayne Brady and is still running. I remember the original from when I stayed home from school in the 60s.
me, I only understand,... goat, statistic, car, door, probability- wait what else?
I will try to explain this as simply as possible (with the assumption that the host always opens a door with a goat)
Note: The door numbering below doesn't really matter, it is just for visual interpretation:
After you make the first choice (Door 1) you have probability of winning 33% which automatically means that the combined probability of the car being behind Door2 or Door3 is 67%. Then the host opens Door 3 (goat) which automatically drops the probability of the car being behind Door 3 to 0% .. BUT... the probability of the car being behind Door 2 or Door 3 is still 67%, so this automatically means there is 67% chance your car is behind Door 2 (67% + 0%) = 67%.
It has nothing to do with mind games. The "host" is powerless, he can't influence the probability if you decide to switch.
Make the music louder. I can still hear the dialog
Copy past for likes
It’s perfect though
Dialogue*
Stolen
Dialogue💀
Nah cus bro went from a villain on call of duty to a frickin professor
This just shows that sometimes probability isn't that reliable 😅
For the people still wondering why this is correct: imagine the show has 100 doors. 1 car, 99 goats. You pick one door and after that 98 goats are revealed. Would you rather keep your 1/100 door or switch to the more likely option?
For those still wondering, the host won't open the door with the car behind it. Otherwise there wouldn't be a gamble to begin with.
To be clear, an important part about the monty hall problem is that the gameshow host will never choose to reveal the door with the car behind it. It's only then that switching doors nets you the probability of all the doors revealed.
If the gameshow host was able to pick the car door you would still switch, only to the door the host picked. How does this affect your initial chance of 1/3 to be right?
lets say we have 5 doors.
1/5 that your door has the prize.
4/5 that your door does not.
1 door gets removed from the equation.
so now 3 doors share the 4/5 probability. 4/5 = 12/15.
12/3=4, so 4/15 for each of those 3.
the initial door still has 1/5 or 3/15 chance to be right.
The host being wrong or right does not affect your odds, I fail to see how it is important.
Nope. It's literally 50/50. Quit playing mind games. 1/2 is 50% no matter how much stupidity you insert in front of it. Trolls. Don't troll, it's a sin and hell is not eternal according to biblical experts
@@Quimothit does affect your odds of getting it right and switching because you know you’re right. Statistics in that case imply that you don’t know the right answer. If I know the answer I can make it 100% to get it right
@@mattyfuture you are insane
@@zachariz1490 you throw a lot of words but fail to explain why picking 1/3 changes odds due to an event happening after that choice