Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Monty Hall problem is a brain teaser, in the form of a probability puzzle, based nominally on the American television game show Let's Make a Deal and named after its original host, Monty Hall. The problem was originally posed (and solved) in a letter by Steve Selvin to the American Statistician in 1975.
Another way to solve the problem is to treat it as a conditional probability problem Conditional probability can be used to solve the Monty hall problem (Selvin 1975b; Morgan et al. 1991; Gillman 1992; Carlton 2005; Grinstead and Snell 2006:137). Consider the mathematically explicit version of the problem given above.
The Monty Hall problem is a puzzle involving probability similar to the American game show Let's Make a Deal.The name comes from the show's host, Monty Hall.A widely known, but problematic (see below) statement of the problem is from Craig F. Whitaker of Columbia, Maryland in a letter to Marilyn vos Savant's September 9, 1990, column in Parade Magazine (as quoted by Bohl, Liberatore, and Nydick).
One divided by two equals two. Two children are fighting over a piece of chalk. An adult intervenes by breaking the chalk in half and handing a piece to each child. One child imme
If people just want to discuss/argue their views of the problem, they can do that here Talk:Monty_Hall_problem/Arguments (see template at the top of the page as well), at another internal page created for such a purpose or outside Wikipedia (web fori, usenet, irc, real life), but ideally not on this discussion page. Anyhow just my observation ...
'The problem' and and 'Problem summary' sections look like they could be merged. A screenshot from the orginal show would be nice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) I've clarified the solution in the lead and combined the 'problem' and 'problem summary' sections. I'll try to find a screenshot from the show.
That is the illusion in the Monty Hall Problem problem -- it alludes to readers that the unknown contestant's choice should affect the odds instead of the known host's choice. You are using the term to say that the odds of the first situation should be carried over 'because conditional probability means the second situation is based on the ...
What is irrelevant is the fact that an alternate version of the problem is needed to demonstrate the fallaciousness of the current explanation. By your same reasoning, one could provide an explanation of the problem that says "Because the word Monty is used in the problem, there is a 2/3 chance to win by switching".