Simple gambling problem

Originally posted by Aetherael
i'm still hurt that eldragonfly has consistently avoided every one of my posts, apparently not finding fault with a single one, and yet continues to assert his ludicrous version of reality.

notice, i didn't say "surprised." just "hurt." 🙂

You're just going to have to try harder! Try replying to a random eldragonfly post from the past. Try replying to all of them!

Originally posted by Nemesio
It must be tough being repeatedly wrong in both math and music.

No wonder you resort to name calling.

Nemesio

Irrelevant. Ad hominem = fallacy.

Originally posted by geepamoogle
I added to my statement because I realized (and was typing out before you posted your response) what you may have been referring to.

If information is given on the result that eliminate some possibilities, that has a good chance of affecting the odds of an event which has already taken place, but for which the results are unstated fully.

This is wh ...[text shortened]... event, that is a part of setup, and not results. Results only come once the event is finished.

That's better, i was starting to wonder.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Let's try it this way:

There are six children arranged in three groups, according to the following model:

Group A-Sarah, Rebekah
Group B-Benjamin, Naomi
Group C-Isaac, David

A little girl walks out, and a guy says 'I bet you even money that the other member of the
group is a also a girl.' This is a bad bet, and here's why.

So, we know that i ...[text shortened]... njamin will walk out (winner).

I hope this clears it up for you, Eldragonfly.

Nemesio

Irrelevant. Worthless re-interpretation, you have proven nothing.

Originally posted by Nemesio
It must be tough being repeatedly wrong in both math and music.

No wonder you resort to name calling.

Nemesio

Read this entire thread Nemesio, i am not the only one who has taken issue with the rather suspect and biased explanations. Many of the posts here only attempt to explain away different interpretations via a simple 2 coins permutation outcomes ad nauseum, to the benefit of no one.

Originally posted by
The choice of card is random (each card has a 1/3 chance of being drawn) and the choice of side is random too (each side has 1/2 chance of being shown face up). It just so happens that in this example, silver was face up.

EDIT: LemonJello and afx both gave the correct answer.

i rejected this explanation because it only served to confuse the problem statement, i.e. no allowance was being made for the gold/gold card. A reasonable person would have either restated and/or reworded the original problem, admitted that the problem was poorly described or pointed someone to the wikipedia page, instead of burying this thread with the same see-through redundant explanation of simple combinatorial maths countless times.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
Read this entire thread Nemesio, i am not the only one who has taken issue with the rather suspect and biased explanations. Many of the posts here only attempt to explain away different interpretations via a simple 2 coins permutation outcomes ad nauseum, to the benefit of no one.

Of course you are! But who cares? This isn't truth by democracy. It's a comedy show with you as the star! 😵

I have to say, I have found it fun feeding the troll despite warnings to the contrary. 🙂

Originally posted by eldragonfly
Irrelevant. Worthless re-interpretation, you have proven nothing.

Are you saying that my interpretation of the odds is incorrect, or that my rewording of the problem
doesn't match the original?

Nemesio

Originally posted by PBE6
Of course you are! But who cares? This isn't truth by democracy. It's a comedy show with you as the star! 😵

I have to say, I have found it fun feeding the troll despite warnings to the contrary. 🙂

Irrelevant. Ad hominem = fallacy

Originally posted by eldragonfly
Irrelevant. Worthless re-interpretation, you have proven nothing.

Why it's irrelevant? Why worthless? Explain which part of it you don't like, explain why it's not an analogy to the original problem. Name-calling and random "irrelevant" posts won't convince anyone that you are right. If I answer to your post with some arguments to back up my opinion (no matter true or false) and you just answer "wrong", I certainly will stick to my opinion because I have at least some reasons (again, no matter true or false but at least reasons) to do so.

You're the one who's backpedalling, you haven't introduced any new arguments, except some new ideas for name-calling, while everyone else is trying to show you an analogy of the original problem, trying to prove their opinion.

In conclusion - learn how to debate.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
A reasonable person would have either restated and/or reworded the original problem...

I reworded the problem identically, except that I used names to elucidate the different sides, and
I used gender instead of colors. I then showed why the even-money bet is a bad one. You
called it worthless, but failed to explain why.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I reworded the problem identically, except that I used names to elucidate the different sides, and
I used gender instead of colors. I then showed why the even-money bet is a bad one. You
called it worthless, but failed to explain why.

Nemesio

Bravo! This is exactly why i called it a worthless and suspect re-interpretation. This is only a simple combinatorial maths problem.

Originally posted by kbaumen
Why it's irrelevant? Why worthless?
You're the one who's backpedalling, you haven't introduced any new arguments, except some new ideas for name-calling, while everyone else is trying to show you an analogy of the original problem, trying to prove their opinion.

In conclusion - learn how to debate.

Irrelevant. Ad hominem = fallacy

In conclusion : acquire some realword critical thinking skillz, please. 😉

Originally posted by Nemesio
I reworded the problem identically, except that I used names to elucidate the different sides, and
I used gender instead of colors. I then showed why the even-money bet is a bad one. You
called it worthless, but failed to explain why.

Nemesio

Duh! You have already said this, and it has been covered numerous times.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
Irrelevant. Ad hominem = fallacy

It is almost painfully ironic how contradictory this simple post is. An ad hominem comment
is indeed irrelevant to the point at hand. That is, simply because there was an ad hominem comment
doesn't make any claims I make about the veracity of the math problem false, but neither does
it bolster the argument. So, 'ad hominem = fallacy' is, in fact, a false equivalence. Your first
statement (that it is irrelevant) is the only correct part of your post.

That having been said, the content of my so-called ad hominem -- that it must be embarrassing
to be been shown repeatedly how you were wrong in your various claims in various subjects --
is probably true, too. That is, I don't believe that such a claim has a negative truth value. I
can't prove that, of course, which is why I phrase it in rather a subjunctive mood.

Nemesio