Maybe in practice, but not in theory Hey, let's argue about the equation I gave above!
I disagree. After revealing #3 it's a new ballgame. Now you have the choice between two; either keeping #1 or exchanging it for #2. So at this point your chances are 50 - 50. Picking one over the other doesn’t change the odds.
I have always thought the same about musical analyzation as well. I agree with your sig btw
Yeah, and I still don't buy your dissection. Often relying on common sense, rather than blindly accepting some complicated theory, is more in touch with reality - and much closer to the truth.
I understand what you were getting at. I’ve heard this one many years ago in school (it’s nothing new). The bottom line is that you have two choices in the final decision - that's 50 -50.
I doubt a moron like you knows much history, but here's one for you. When Galileo saw Jupiter's moons with his telescope and realized that the other planets have moons just like the earth, the Catholic church refused to believe him. Galileo simply asked them to look through the *** telescope to see for themselves. The bishops refused, because they were more comfortable believing a comfortable fallacy. You are absolutely dead wrong on this one. But in spite of your intense stupidity in the rest of this thread I will admit that this Monty Hall problem has tricked many people, including mathematicians. You see, it's not about common sense vs abstract theory. It's just about truth. And in this case you are wrong, very wrong. Just read the article, though I doubt you'll understand it.
I'm sorry steveie-girl but I don't converse with idiots. You sound like a pre-teeny bopper with a pimple complex.
Yes. the key word here is TENDS. .9999etc. TENDS towards 1, but is not, in fact, 1.
I absolutely agree. Common sense says the earth is flat. I mean, what, otherwise we'd fall off right? And even an idiot can see the sun goes up and comes down, so obviously the sun goes around us. Screw Newton, Galileo, and their complicated theories.
I think I also remember someone disputing the fact that 1/3 equals 0.333333... (recurring)Of course it equals that. Watch and learn:let's say x = 0.333333...x = 0.333333...10x = 3.33333... 9x = 3 x = 3/9 which is the same as a thirdUsing the same principle, we can also proove that 0.999999 DOES equal 1:x = 0.999999...10x = 9.999999...10x − x = 99x = 9x = 1
Have a nice life Steveie-girl.
They can't dispute it logically Kelly. They let their text books do their thinking.
Fantastically eloquent (and coherent), as usual. Not to mention the blatant sexism.I do have a feminine side, in fact.Luv ya lots, silly... XOXOXOXOXOXO
I don't think Kelly's on your side, Moron.Kelly is saying that no one who disputes 0.999... = 1 has yet made a logical case for this yet.God I love flaming idiots!!!! Fun, fun fun.
Correct. Except for the flaming idiots part. Flaming idiots are entertaining for a certain amount of time, but after a while... *pats pocket dagger menacingly*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_monty_hall_problem
I agree; in the beginning the chance of selecting the prize is one in three. However, when the rules change, so does the odds - to 50-50.
I never suggested you were on my side Kelly. I'm an independent soul, unlike the insecure person that showed his/her mentality by bringing up the subject of "sides". John
They can't dispute it logically Kelly. They let their text books do their thinking.John
Well, it sure sounds like it. Somehow, I feel that the person who attempts (badly) to cover up their mistakes is really the insecure one.
Flip a coin. You get heads 100 times in a row.
On the other hand, the terms of the associated sequence, 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999, ..., do "get arbitrarily close" to 1, in the sense that, for each term in the progression, the difference between that term and 1 gets smaller and smaller. No matter how small you want that difference to be, I can find a term where the difference is even smaller.This "getting arbitrarily close" process refers to something called "limits". You'll learn about limits later, probably in calculus. And, according to limit theory, "getting arbitrarily close" means that they're equal: 0.999... does indeed equal 1.Note regarding all of the above: To a certain extent, each of these arguments depends on a basic foundational doctrine of mathematics called "The Axiom of Choice". A discussion of the Axiom of Choice is well beyond anything we could cover here, and is something that most mathematicians take on faith.
You still didn't answer me Kelly. What mistakes???
Since you're so keen on common sense, why don't you actually try it for yourself instead sticking by your own stubborn "theories?" It's very simple, just try it at home with some playing cards. Blindly sticking to your own preconceived (and wrong) ideas is just as wrong as blindly trusting the textbooks. Or you can try this simulation:https://math.ucsd.edu/~crypto/Monty/monty.html
Dear retard,We already told you you were dead wrong about the Monty Hall problem. Here's my earlier post:Since you're so keen on common sense, why don't you actually try it for yourself instead sticking by your own stubborn "theories?" It's very simple, just try it at home with some playing cards. Blindly sticking to your own preconceived (and wrong) ideas is just as wrong as blindly trusting the textbooks. Or you can try this simulation:https://math.ucsd.edu/~crypto/Monty/monty.htmlRegards,Your superior (yes, I'm smarter & better than you)
They can't dispute it logically Kelly. They let their text books do the thinking.John
I never suggested you were on my side Kelly. I'm an independent soul, unlike the insecure person that showed his/her mentality by bringing up the subject of "sides".
stevie: I cannot believe that you disputed what I was telling you, and then copied and pasted my proof to someone else. johnny: in my opinion I think you should be banned from this forum. pocorina was banned for pretending she had TB and I think the crime you are commiting here is about 30 times worse. do yourself a favour: f*ck off
John - I'm not jumping on any bandwagon at all, I can think for myselfI'm not saying you are covering anything up. I have not been following that aspect of this thread. The crime that you are commiting is that you are wrong in saying that 0.9999... doesn't equal 1. I'm sorry but that is like telling me that the world is not spherical (as I'm sure someone else has pointed out).Also, you are obviously an extremely poor judge of gender. I am a GIRL. So before you go blatantly assuming that I am male, why don't you go check my profile, you idiot.Instead of us coming back to read this thread in a couple of years, why don't you spent a couple of years studying maths?
Topic: I cant belevie ppl cant put this through their heads 