Re: A simple betting problem was RE: my objection to the Doomsday argument

From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Wed Apr 30 2003 - 10:56:47 MDT

  • Next message: Samantha Atkins: "Re: The Coming World Police System"

    Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
    >
    > ### At first I did come up with .5 as the answer, but it seemed too simple,
    > and I chose to get confused :-) Thanks for pointing this out.

    Yeh... well, you know my remedy for confusion.

    > Talking about simple probabilities, here is a problem which initially
    > baffled me:
    >
    > You play a game on TV. There is a large prize behind one of three doors. You
    > are given a chance to bet on opening one of them. After you choose, the
    > game's moderator will open one of the remaining two doors, an empty one. You
    > can now change your bet, choosing the door that has not been opened, or you
    > can stick with your initial bet. The question is, what should you do:
    >
    > a) stick to your previous choice
    > b) flip a fair coin and either stick to your choice or choose the one
    > remaining door
    > c) always choose the one other remaining door
    >
    > It's really simple.

    Here's another trick question that only the true Bayesian will resolve.
    You meet a mathematician. "How many children do you have?" you ask.
    "Two," he replies, "and at least one of them is a boy." What is the
    probability that they are both boys?

    I would *not* answer 1/3.

    -- 
    Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
    Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 11:06:58 MDT