[keenerd]

That everything is completely independent? This is the correct, non-naive assumption to always make unless you have a very good reason otherwise.

There are 3 binary variables. Some combinations of the variables are impossible. These impossible combinations are discarded. For example, the bear said he saw a fox. Therefor it is not possible for the bear to be truthful and the thief to be a raccoon. When that combination comes up, it is discarded. There is no dependency.

[JumpCrisscross]

> These impossible combinations are discarded. For example, the bear said he saw a fox. Therefor [sic] it is not possible for the bear to be truthful and the thief to be a raccoon.

Per the story, there is a 20% chance a truthful bear may have mistaken a raccoon for a fox. Not automatically discarding possibilities like "a truthful bear saw a fox, though the thief is a raccoon" is a hallmark of probabilistic thinking. Thinking through these examples formally has advantages over starting with code.

[keenerd]

Um, no. I did not say anything like that.

But go ahead and rigorously demonstrate any non-zero existence for "A truthful bear saw a fox, though the thief is a raccoon" with the current parameters of the model. It is not a possibility, it is nonsense.

Please prove the brute-force simulation fails to converge on the correct answer. It is figuratively running a million parallel universes and recording what happened. In no legitimate universe does the combination "bear was not mistaken, bear saw fox, thief was raccoon" ever occur.

[totallymike]

Per the discussion in the scenario, "bear was not mistaken," and "bear was truthful" are different things. One implies a bear with poor eyesight; the other implies a bear intentionally misrepresenting the facts.

Given the story, the bear mistook a raccoon for a fox 20% of the time, which is very different from being untruthful.