請不要介意我copy and plaste 我和別人有關三門問題的討論... Try to understand it from the perspective of the host. The player provides his prediction to the host. The host opens a pair of doors with sheep, leaving only two pairs of doors, one sheep and one car, for the player to choose. If the player predicts the door of the car, what will the host do? Want the player to change their choice? The host asks you to calculate the odds with misleading you already have once choice before. If you change your choice, 2/3 will win. On the contrary, the player predicted the door with the sheep. What will the host do to make the player still choose the door with the sheep? ........ Dawyer's door problem, calculate the chance of the host winning. 所謂的第一次選擇根本並不成立, 你選擇了後得到你所選擇的東西才可以真正成為一個完整選擇事件. 當給與你改選的機會並打開其中一對門時, 事實上就是抹殺了你之前的選擇機會, 把之前的合約當沒發生一樣,但就把錯誤資料計算入真正的合約。 而重新叫你再選擇一次, 在全件事情提供給你的最新及最終修訂資訊就只有兩對門而已. 之前的花招都是請君入甕. 那再說為什麼聰明人就是看不穿? 2/3 比 1/2, 遊戲上一般當然想要2/3 證明自己有多聰明。 另外, 要選擇去改變要有成本的,時間同精神都包括, 現實上好多生活例子如炒股等手續費誰付? 猶大人讓你自我感覺良好時, 他們已經在你身上取得利益了。 情況就是主持人令參與者混淆了"未有結果的決定"和"有實際得益的選擇"視為同一樣意義, 明明已經決定了, 但把規則改變三選一至二選一, 又誤導你以為已經選擇了一次, 但事實所謂選擇你毛也沒一條拿到手, 到最終真正選擇時為了證明自己有多聰明有學識, 當然地明明只有兩個選擇, 也要看成2/3 了. 好一個戈培爾效應的驗證.如果學者門教育界還不修正蒙提霍爾問題引伸的問題, 仍認為2/3 沒錯, 教育學術的意義何在? 給毀壞掉了. Do you agreed "Decision without consequences" means only prediction, not calculation as chosen?