Search Results
7/20/2025, 9:03:20 AM
Chris Claremont
6/18/2025, 6:27:37 PM
>>16700631
>You failed
No. I didn't.
>You rewrote the problem to arrive at the same answer so people will bicker about that instead?
A random gold ball and a random ball that is revealed to be gold are not the same thing.
>Suppose you picked the right-most box
You didn't. There was at least one gold ball in the box. Obviously there will be a contradiction if you assume contradictory facts.
>You reach in and somehow produce a gold ball from thin air?
Your problem with my formulation would still happen with the original formulation of the problem which ALSO produces a gold ball from the random box.
>Although the mechanism by which you would divine the contents of the boxes is, of course, inexplicable, which only further goes to show that the answer is otherwise necessarily 2/3 in a fair trial.
Is this bait? The mechanism for divining the contents of the box doesn't need to be explained. Also
>>16700329
I can't explain everything wrong with you, nor can I tell if you're baiting, but I'll say at least this much, the procedure for reaching the question does not need to be guaranteed to work every time since it is given that it worked in the lead up to the question being asked.
Or in other words, the probability of past events is 1. There was at least one gold ball in the randomly selected box.
Why the fuck do dipshits flock to probability problems?
>You failed
No. I didn't.
>You rewrote the problem to arrive at the same answer so people will bicker about that instead?
A random gold ball and a random ball that is revealed to be gold are not the same thing.
>Suppose you picked the right-most box
You didn't. There was at least one gold ball in the box. Obviously there will be a contradiction if you assume contradictory facts.
>You reach in and somehow produce a gold ball from thin air?
Your problem with my formulation would still happen with the original formulation of the problem which ALSO produces a gold ball from the random box.
>Although the mechanism by which you would divine the contents of the boxes is, of course, inexplicable, which only further goes to show that the answer is otherwise necessarily 2/3 in a fair trial.
Is this bait? The mechanism for divining the contents of the box doesn't need to be explained. Also
>>16700329
I can't explain everything wrong with you, nor can I tell if you're baiting, but I'll say at least this much, the procedure for reaching the question does not need to be guaranteed to work every time since it is given that it worked in the lead up to the question being asked.
Or in other words, the probability of past events is 1. There was at least one gold ball in the randomly selected box.
Why the fuck do dipshits flock to probability problems?
Page 1