|
|
|
|
|
by code0
5961 days ago
|
|
There is a certain subtlety to this problem which many people overlook. It is that whether the host <em>always</em> gives the option to switch. Only if the host always gives you the option to switch, there is a benefit in switching. If the host acts randomly(say deciding on a coin flip whether to give the option to switch), then the benefit of switching is nullified. Also, if the host is malicious (gives the option to switch only if you have the door with the prize), then of course switching decreases your chances of winning.
I believe that the reason several "PhDs" were confused over the answer has got to do with the fact that they might have assumed a host which acts randomly. |
|
If the host gives you the option to switch based on a coin flip, that flip will be independent of the state of the game and just average the overall probabilities between a regular game and a switch-style game.
Now, allowing the host to act totally randomly will remove the advantage. In particular, the host needs to randomly choose which door to open from all three (including your own). If he finds the goat, you reset and play again perhaps, if he doesn't find the goat then you've got a 50/50 chance between the remaining doors. The probabilities are simple because each door was treated exchangeably and there could be no possible information flow that is mutual to, entangled with, the location of the goat.