[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 17 May 2011 20:01:06 GMT, Carey Carlan
wrote:

(Don Pearce) wrote in news:4dd0c3d7.381246241
:

That isn't the final situation. I will take this a step at a time.

There are three doors - one with a car, two with goats

I choose one. I have a 1 in 3 chance of being right

That means there is a 2 in 3 chance of the car being in the other two

I know for a fact that at least one of the other two is a goat.

That does not change the odds - it is still 2 in 3 that the car is in
one of those

The host shows me one of the two - one he knows to contain a goat.

This is not new information, I knew there was a goat there, I still
know there was a goat there.

The odds are still 2 in 3 that the car is in one of those two doors.

Stop there.
No, I didn't know there was a goat THERE. I knew there was a goat
behind at least one of the door besides the one I chose, but I didn't
know which one. Now a variable is removed from the equation.

Revealing a goat behind a door doesn't change the odds?
Of course it does.
Otherwise, revealing the car behind a door also wouldn't change the
odds.

Once the host has revealed a goat, then there's an even chance that the
car is behind one of the two remaining doors--and I have no information
either way (unless you're counting the psychological factors) that the
door I chose is or is not the correct one.

Not trying to be argumentative, but I still don't see the logic.

But now those 2 in 3 odds have been concentrated into the one
remaining door of the two, which I will open because that is better
than the 1 in 3 chance of it being my first choice.

d

Sorry, but if you don't get it by now, you simply aren't going to.
Give up and try something else.

d