But it has nothing to do with the Monty Hall problem. It would be a completely different game. The only common thing would be that they are both narrated as game shows.
> You are on a game show. There are three doors, one has a prize behind them. You pick a door. The host who knows whats behind the doors opens one of the doors and reveals that it was the wrong door. Should you switch?
This description doesn't contradict my scenario at all. it doesn't say "The host will always reveals a dud no matter what happens".
Now, your intuition tells you that my scenario feels wrong since the host doesn't always do the same thing every single time, but that is how math and statistics works. We only know that the host opened this door this one time, we aren't given information about how the host acts in general. My interpretation is therefore just as valid.
Of course, for the real game the host always opened a dud door. But the original problem description didn't say that, it just described a single instance. In a single instance there isn't enough information to tell. And no, if you assume that the reader must know how the original game show worked then the problem isn't a properly defined problem, and the answer could be anything. That is how math works.
I think you're reading the description incorrectly. It is not meant to be a specific instance that may happen differently for other instances. "You" is an abstraction over all players of the game show, there's an implicit "forall you:" in front of the sentence.
I agree that this is not as precisely stated as it could be. And unfortunately there's a type of logic puzzle that relies on people understanding these implicit quantifiers and being prepared to ignore them, which sometimes makes it hard to determine if they're supposed to be assumed present or not. But the most common interpretation is to include it.
> I think you're reading the description incorrectly. It is not meant to be a specific instance that may happen differently for other instances. "You" is an abstraction over all players of the game show, there's an implicit "forall you:" in front of the sentence.
But the problem described a specific instance. You are reading it wrong. Right now you are just digging deeper into a hole.
If the problem actually was told as you describe then you would be right, but it isn't. It just describes a single instance, you are at the show, the host opens a door, what do you do?
You completely missed the point of my comment. The wording describes a specific instance. And additionally, the rhetorical convention implies that there is no instance of the problem for which the description doesn't hold. This part is unwritten; the reader is meant to apply it from context.
It seems like this is why there's a big disagreement about this particular write-up. Some people are applying this additional constraint, and others (yourself) aren't.
If you counter that this constraint isn't written, and therefore it shouldn't apply, I'm sorry but you're wrong. The author clearly intended it.
Actually, at least according to Wikipedia, the description is "the host will always reveal a dud no matter what happens".
According to Wikipedia, the original problem statement was like this:
"Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?"
It is annoying that so many people who don't understand math will downvote in these discussions. Always happens. The problem as described in this comic doesn't have the solution comic says it has. That is a fact. It doesn't say it is the monty hall show, it just says it happens once, that isn't enough to accurately identify the pattern which leads the solution to be 2/3 chance if you switch. If you don't see that then you don't understand this problem.
What exactly do you mean? You mean because it could be the casino scam you describe elsewhere, that they only open the other door if you picked the right door?
Then I think the confusion might stem from the concept of probability. I think what is meant here is probability from the point of view of the deciding person (given their knowledge). That does not have to be the real probability at all.
I don't have a good example and I am not currently well read on it, but I remember from some Bayesian book the example of the lawn being wet. So either it has rained, or the lawn sprinkler had been on. And you can reason about the probabilities. But of course either the one or the other happened (in a simplified logic world). There are no probabilities about it. The probabilities are only the estimates of the person trying to infer if it has rained or not.
OK so strictly speaking, you could create zillions of variants of the Monty Hall Problem from the scarce description. Maybe the host looked at the player funny before the show, so the player raises his estimates for the likelihood of the host being a crook (as in your casino game). Or any number of other things could affect their reasoning.
So it would be merely convention of the mathematical puzzle to assume the simplest case of everything else being random. And then of course there will be puzzles that trick you exactly with that assumption, to teach you that you shouldn't make too many assumptions. OK.
What would he reveal in case 3) if you haven't picked the car, if not a goat? That variant doesn't seem to make sense.
Likewise for 2). If Monty reveals the car, you just pick the car. I also don't think his knowledge really matters. You have 1/3 chance of picking the car. One other door is revealed to not be the car. So odds for the other door to have the car is 2/3 - you don't even need a Monty in the story.
Bullshit. Of course buying your own house is also an investment decision. You speculate that its future value minus your initial investment (and plus the "extra joy" you get out of being a homeowner) is worth more than what you would have paid in rent in the same time.
The simple fact is that the people who complain about their homes they rent from those companies are unable to find other accommodation for a comparable rent. Which in turn implies that it is not really the fault of those companies, otherwise somebody else would be able to provide better housing for the same price.
You can not simply charge "ever-increasing rent". You can only charge what people are willing to pay. More people are pouring into the city every day who are prepared to pay more. Simple as that.
Those companies owning 150K apartments are also shareholder companies, so "small people" and their pension plans will still be affected.
People have to live somewhere, if someone's forced to choose between picking up an extra job to afford rent or living on the streets, they're gunna choose the first. I'd argue this is a bad thing and people deserve places to live.
Yes, they have to live somewhere. Not necessarily in central Berlin, or central San Francisco. There are plenty of places with cheap housing in Germany.
Also just because people need something, doesn't imply they have to be given those things for free. That's not usually how it works.
They wanted to build just on a small stripe on the side of it, it is not as if they would have to fill the whole place with houses. But even that was shot down via "Volksentscheid".
I think the referendum against building in Tempelhof saw right through the project and understood what its end goal would have been: it would have created apartments that those being priced out of Berlin wouldn't have been able to afford. The losses would be socialized (namely, the park) while the benefits would go to the wealthy.
For those unfamiliar with the situation I found this article [1] which, biased as it is, I think accurately reflects the opinion of the common Berliner at the time. If the plan had proposed 100% social housing, I bet the story would have been different.
Honestly one of the things I like most about living in Berlin is the fact that local politics manage to represent the public good effectively. I'm a well paid tech worker, so I would be fine either way, but I'm happy that my neighbours who are hairdressers or hand workers can also enjoy a good quality of life here. I would hate for it to become a playground for the rich like London or Manhattan.
But that is nonsense - apartments are apartments, even if wealthy move into those apartments, it would free the apartments they previously lived in. Also, it would be money for the city.
Also it is not just social cases who have problems with high rents in Berlin. You suggest the majority of people in Berlin want only more social housing, implying most of them are social cases themselves?
I think most Berliners would read your comments as "it is a good thing that we give a part of our public park to the rich because they'll give us their less-desirable apartments in return. Like trickle-down economics, but for apartments". And if the current situation is any indication, those rich people will keep their old apartment and rent it, or sell it to foreign investors. Either way, say goodbye to ever owning a place in the city where you grew up.
As for the second part: Berliners feel that the city should belong to those that lived there when no one wanted to, and recognize that those people are probably not rich. Kicking the hairdresser that lived there for 40 years to make room for the tech bro is not generally seen as a positive development. Social housing would ensure that the city remains in the hands of its citizens.
The park would not be "given to the rich", presumably the parts open for building would have been sold to "the rich", with the money benefitting every Berlin citizen (ideally - but we know our government her is composed of very good people, right?).
Also what does it matter if the "rich" rent out their old apartment? What is needed is supply of apartments. Per supply and demand, more supply means lower prices.
Do the people expect to live in luxury apartments for little money?
And it is very touching that nobody wanted to live here 40 years ago and the people held on. But then they could have bought their living places for very little money. Also the whole place was subsidized by the USA as a stand against the Soviet Union. The people staying benefitted a lot.
There already is a construct for the place where you live belonging to you: it is called "buying your own place to live". If you choose to rent instead, you signal that you don't necessarily want to stay forever.
Or run the city into the ground, make it unattractive enough to repel the people who want to move there. That approach may even work out - Socialism succeeded doing that before already.
Investors who do not rent out locally - including those renting out to tourists, those keeping empty homes for occasional vacation use, those keeping empty homes because they're playing financial shenanigans (moving money offshore, money laundering, keeping some properties empty to prevent depressing rents from nearby properties). Probably some other groups I'm not even aware of.
Point being, it's not true that all supply of homes ends up being used by people to live in. A lot stay empty most, or all, of the time. People owning those tend to have more money than locals looking for a place to live, so the latter get priced out.
