Talk:Monty Hall problem
This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Monty Hall problem article itself. Please place discussions on the underlying mathematical issues on the Arguments page. If you just have a question, try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics instead. |
Monty Hall problem is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 23, 2005. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
50/50
editIgnorant Monty / Monty Fall - current explanation is incomplete
editThe table currently describes "Ignorant Monty" solution as "switching wins 50%". However, in this variant, switching and staying are indifferent (when a goat has been revealed by chance by Ignorant Monty) and both in fact win 50%. Suggest that table be updated to state that "switching or staying both win 50%". This is given already in the citation for that Variant, if you read the second page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#CITEREFRosenthal2005a 2600:8801:17E2:0:30D0:6149:CBE5:D00B (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
The completely unnecessary long-winded discussion mainly confuses readers
editThis article is much more confusing than enlightening.
Instead of straighforwardly explaining the problem and its correct solution, it goes into all manner of alternative theories.
Furthermore, the illustrated explanation contains statements "Probability = 1/6", "Probability = 1/3", "Probability = 1/3", "Probability = 1/6",
without ever stating what these numbers are the probabilities of.
That is very unclear writing.
I hope someone familiar with this subject will fix this.
It needs a better explanation
editGaining more knowledge change conditional probabilities.
P(Door 1 | Door 3 unknown) < P(Door 1 | Not Door 3)
01:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC) Tuntable (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- What needs a better explanation is your post. EEng 05:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)