Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on For (a variation) of the Monty Hall problem, what permits you to repaint doors 2 and 3? What permits you to replace p with $1 - p$?

Post

For (a variation) of the Monty Hall problem, what permits you to repaint doors 2 and 3? What permits you to replace p with $1 - p$?

+0
−2

Please see the text colored in red at the bottom.

  1. Why can you haughtily just — and what legitimizes you to — "[i]magine repainting doors 2 and 3, reversing which is called which"? This is completely unworkable, half-baked because you can't reverse doors in the real game!

  2. What legitimates you to replace $1 - p$ in part (b), with $p$ for part (c)? In general, you can't haphazardly replace variables!

  1. Consider the Monty Hall problem, except that Monty enjoys opening door 2 more than he enjoys opening door 3, and if he has a choice between opening these two doors, he opens door 2 with probability p, where $1/2 \le p \le 1$.

To recap: there are three doors, behind one of which there is a car (which you want), and behind the other two of which there are goats (which you don't want). Initially, all possibilities are equally likely for where the car is. You choose a door, which for concreteness we assume is door 1. Monty Hall then opens a door to reveal a goat, and offers you the option of switching. Assume that Monty Hall knows which door has the car, will always open a goat door and offer the option of switching, and as above assume that if Monty Hall has a choice between opening door 2 and door 3, he chooses door 2 with probability p (with $1/2 \le p \le 1$).

(a) Find the unconditional probability that the strategy of always switching succeeds (unconditional in the sense that we do not condition on which of doors 2 or 3 Monty opens).

(b) Find the probability that the strategy of always switching succeeds, given that Monty opens door 2.

(c) Find the probability that the strategy of always switching succeeds, given that Monty opens door 3.

Solution:

(a) Let $C_j$ be the event that the car is hidden behind door j and let W be the event that we win using the switching strategy. Using the law of total probability, we can find the unconditional probability of winning: $P(W) = P(W \mid C_1)P(C_1) + P(W \mid C_2)P(C_2) + P(W \mid C_3)P(C_3) = 0 \cdot 1/3 + 1 \cdot 1/3 + 1 \cdot 1/3 = 2/3.$

(b) A tree method works well here (delete the paths which are no longer relevant after the conditioning, and reweight the remaining values by dividing by their sum), or we can use Bayes' rule and the law of total probability (as below).

Let $D_i$ be the event that Monty opens Door i. Note that we are looking for $P(W|D_2)$, which is the same as $P(C_3 \mid D_2)$ as we first choose Door 1 and then switch to Door 3. By Bayes' rule and the law of total probability,

$P(C3 \mid D2) = \dfrac{P(D_2 \mid C_3)P(C_3)}{P(D_2)} = \dfrac{P(D_2 \mid C_3)P(C_3)}{P(D_2 \mid C_1)P(C_1) + P(D_2 \mid C_2)P(C_2) + P(D_2 \mid C_3)P(C_3)}
= \dfrac{1 \cdot 1/3}{p \cdot 1/3 + 0 \cdot 1/3 + 1 \cdot 1/3} = \dfrac{1}{ 1 + p}.$

(c) The structure of the problem is the same as part (b) (except for the condition that $p \ge 1/2$, which was not needed above). $\color{red}{\text{Imagine repainting doors 2 and 3, reversing which is called which. By part (b) with $1-p$ in place of $p$}}$, $P(C_2 \mid D_3) = \dfrac{1}{1+(1-p)} = \dfrac{1}{2-p}.$

Blitzstein, Introduction to Probability (2019 2 edn), Chapter 2, Exercise 40, p 91.
pp 15-6 in the publicly downloadable PDF of curbed solutions.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

Tangential comment on the Monty Hall problem (1 comment)
Tangential comment on the Monty Hall problem
gmcgath‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

It's nice to see the Monty Hall problem stated correctly for once, including the condition: "Assume that Monty Hall knows which door has the car, will always open a goat door and offer the option of switching." The problem is very often presented without this assumption, and when I first encountered it I assumed that Monty opened a door at random. In that case, the "intuitive" probabilities are the correct ones, but then the person presenting the problem says "You dummy!" and introduces the method of choosing the door as a new, previously unstated assumption that changes the probabilities.