Forum menu
I heard a rumour on Facebook saying the shopkeeper had a vasectomy after his first boy was born. Effectively there's zero chance of two boys. There's two puppies but no one cares about them other than the shopkeepers wife. Social services took away their first son (recognizable by trademark skinhead, facial scar, clenched fists and pink high top sneakers).
Using all instantaneous knowledge of the dogs from the wife’s “yes” it is arguably possible to come to a different conclusion as I have explained many times, rather than the step by step logic above which is not how we gain the information.
So explain how that is different to the example I just gave with the cards that uses “step by step logic”
You are not applying the new information correctly. As demonstrated by Bayes Theorem and carefully explained by multiple stats experts.
I don’t really understand how you can comprehend Monty Hall but not this puzzle. There is a distinct overlap.
What I was baiting for..
i think the term is “trolling”
So explain how that is different to the example I just gave with the cards that uses “step by step logic”
You are not applying the new information correctly. As demonstrated by Bayes Theorem and carefully explained by multiple stats experts.
I 'think' what sbob is saying is the scenario to the point where the wife says yes is contrived/staged. Like a film director has setup the scene to end as it does by guaranteeing one of the dogs is male. This is done by throwing one male dog into the bath and one other dog of indeterminate gender so that when 'action' is called the wife will always answer yes.If you view it like this the answer will be 50%. He is 'rigging the deck' to the tune of 1/6th (difference between 1/3 and 1/2) to ensure the same result in the scenario every time it plays out. You and I view this as a scenario that is playing out as we observe it where the wife could have said no but didn't. It goes without saying that we are right and he is wrong 😉
Still going huh? Yes if sbob snuck in into the pet shop and rigged the selection of dogs it's 50%. I think it's fair to assume he didn't in the question as worded.
If someone rigged the section of dogs the probability is 100% cos they made sure it was a pair of boys at the start.
Prove me wrong
You are not applying the new information correctly. As demonstrated by Bayes Theorem and carefully explained by multiple stats experts.
Conversely, you are not applying Bayes Theorem correctly and I'm really not sure what "stats experts" we have here or what relevance they have to my point, though referring to Bayes is proof that you don't
I can accept no-one is able to get my point and am perfectly happy with that but it does not mean it is invalid. 🙂
I think the term is “trolling”
That title goes to Cougar for deliberately posting a thread that he hoped would be contentious.
Are we all finally agreed on 1/3 now? If not here is why I changed from thinking 1/2:
Forget coin tosses, imagine 100 wives and baths (ahem). One dog is assigned to each bath randomly = 50M, 50F.
Second random dog gets wet, so now = 25MM, 25MF and 25FM, 25FF (100M, 100F)
Phone call confirms it isn't one of the last 25 baths, so must be one of the remaining 75 baths.
Only a third of these are both dog dogs.
The end.