Three doors

Originally posted by doodinthemood
Nevertheless, I feel that my proposal, while not definitely confirming a 100% stick, should at least signify that the puzzle needs more debate

Read my last post. This idea has already been covered. It is not the subject of any debate.

So, is there a debate or not? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

I'm not contradicting myself.
If the presenter always opens a door, then it is 66% switch. This is not open to debate, it is mathematically provable, and anyone who repeats the proof for it adds nothing to the discussion.

There is a debate about whether or not it is reasonable to suggest that the presenter does not always open a door.

Originally posted by doodinthemood
I'm not contradicting myself.
If the presenter always opens a door, then it is 66% switch. This is not open to debate, it is mathematically provable, and anyone who repeats the proof for it adds nothing to the discussion.

There is a debate about whether or not it is reasonable to suggest that the presenter does not always open a door.

Thanks for the clarification. To suggest that the host may or may not open another door is just silly. It changes the rules of the game. If he does open a losing door, then you switch...we all agree on that. If he instead opens no door, then you are left with either keeping your original choice (1/3 success), or switching to either of the two other doors (each with a 1/3 success rate). That proposal just doesn't make sense.

The proposal is that if it is not required he open a door, then he would have let you open your door without giving you the chance to switch had you picked an incorrect door.