Three Curtains

Can't find one with just a cursory search, but I know I read it somewhere. Might not have been online. I'll keep trying.

They weren't designed to cheat. They can only work on hard math equations. There is no way a simulator can "simulate chance." For example, a simulator would never, ever produce results of a simulation in which 99 out of 100 coin tosses came up "heads," but it can happen. It's not likely, but the simulator will never produce that result.

Here's the best example I know. Helicopters have flown upside down and survived. Not intentionally, and not for long. But the first-ever public test flight of the UH-1 done before a procurement team from the Pentagon, was nearly a disaster because of a freak thunderstorm that blew over the mountains and engulfed the bird before anyone saw it coming. That was in 1958. They landed the bird, and found only sixteen rivets in the airframe were stretched, and one popped. The Army ordered 1,500 of them.

Get a simulator to produce those conditions? It will not happen. According to the equations that go into the simulator's programing, it's impossible, so it won't reproduce the event that happened to the very first bird publicly flown. Program into the simulator such a thunderstorm appearing unexpectedly, and it crashes the bird 100% of the time.

I just thought of another one. United Air Lines Flight 232, July 19, 1989, bound from Denver to Chicago. The plane suffered catastrophic of the DC-10s tail-mounted third engine. The engine literally disintegrated, throwing shrapnel from interior engine parts all over the aircraft, severing hydraulic lines in all three such systems aboard the aircraft. Capt. Alfred C. Haynes, First Officer William Records, and Second Officer Dudley Dvorak went to work figuring out how to control and uncontrollable aircraft. They were joined by Dennis E. Fitch, an off-duty United Airlines DC-10 flight instructor who was flying first class.

The four settled on shifting the throttles on the two remaining engines, feeding power to the engine opposite any turns they wanted to make. To descend, their only choice was to reduce engine power. They brought the plane in steep and fast at Sioux Gateway Airport in Sioux City, Iowa. That mode was the only choice they had given the spaghetti the explosion had rendered of their systems, and when the plane landed, it broke in two, rolled, and the remaining two engines burst into flames. The crash killed 111 of the 296 people on board, but miraculously the crew all survived, along with 181 others. The reality is, everyone on board should have died.

The FAA, Douglas and United all tried to duplicate the maneuvers the four pilots used to bring the plane over 150 air miles from where the engine exploded, to the airport. No simulation succeeded. Every single one indicated the plane should have crashed and killed everyone. But it didn't.

Then there's Sully Sullenberger. 'Nuf said.

The "Let's Make A Deal" simulator is far simpler and less intense than the flight simulators. Nonetheless, what you tell a simulator is possible results in all it can do being within that realm of possibility. It can't think, it can't duplicate chance, it can't do "real world." It's a computer. God, humans and reality interact much differently

 

I might as well jump in here again. At the outset of the game and if he stands pat, the contestant does have a pure 1 in 3 chance of choosing correctly. When Monty eliminates one of the curtains he then gives you the option of swapping your initial choice for the lone remaining curtain. IF you decide to swap, you have changed the initial conditions and you now have a 1 in 2 chance of choosing correctly.

 

I believe that is correct. Been thinking about it, and yes, it appears the action of the contestant, not the host, is what changes the odds. That would explain the actual "Let's Make A Deal" stats showing a roughly 1/3 chance of winning if one doesn't change his/her door, but a nearly 1/2 chance when he/she does. Good call, ITL. :thumbsup:

 

I think the Dead Horse Theory is in full effect here.

 

Do you agree with my analysis or not?

 

Once door 3 is eliminated, you have 2 doors left. No matter which door you choose 1 or 2, you have a 50/50 chance of being right.

These guys are blowing smoke. Once you have two doors left, your odds are 50/50 no matter which door you choose.

 

Once door 3 is eliminated, you have 2 doors left. No matter which door you choose 1 or 2, you have a 50/50 chance of being right.

These guys are blowing smoke. Once you have two doors left, your odds are 50/50 no matter which door you choose.

Look at it like this, if originally all there was was doors 1 and 2, what would be your odds if you picked either one? 1 in 2 or 50/50.

They are just confusing themselves and others with pure double-talk.

 

Non Sequitur. What difference does it make if I answer your question? Just state your case and let me react.

If I choose curtain #1 I have a 1 out of 3 chance of being correct. If Monty shows me 6 more curtains but I stand pat with curtain #1 I still have a 1 out of 3 chance of being correct since my original odds haven't changed because I haven't changed my choice.

 

The Dead Horse Theory is no longer a theory.

Rstrats has proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

I don't believe I said anything about who was opening the curtain.

There isn't a 2/3 chance, there is a 1/3 chance.

Whatever...

 

That is still 50/50 because doors 2 and 3 are combined into one pick. So, you have the choice of #1 Door number one, or #2 Doors number 2 and 3. If you pick #2, you get both doors 2 and 3. However, that's only one pick.

Math was not your major in school was it?