[quote]Originally posted by [i]kaichun88[/i] at 2007-3-16 22:29:
我認為#116的post完全可以解決你的... [/quote]
thanks for telling me that you do not understand the first question
but please don't make the 1st question become the 2nd question,that's the reason why i ask the 1st question!
[quote]Originally posted by [i]kaichun88[/i] at 2007-3-17 12:52 AM:
你不是天才,但你是比天才還強的鬼才... [/quote]
你有冇睇清楚題目？
題目係"已知其中一個是女孩子, 另一個都是女孩子的機率"，問的是 P(兩個都是女孩子|其中一個是女)，而不是 P(生一個女孩子)
所以我冇計錯
[quote]Originally posted by [i]hold_find[/i] at 2007-3-17 01:09 PM:
你有冇睇清楚題目？
題目係"... [/quote]
係喎,你啱喎,咁我問你,已知生了五個兒子的情況下,第六個也是兒子的概率係幾多?
假如你不是答1/2,咁庥煩讀多幾年書,而不是指責別人睇錯题目,或出题者出錯題目,一直以有,我向你提出的問題你一條都答唔到,
為何女男不是男女?怎會是1/3?
玩家轉換選擇機會率(留意,不是轉換選擇而中機會率)又是幾多?
為甚麼轉換選擇機會率(留意,不是轉換選擇而中機會率)應是2/3?你是如何得出2/3的結果?,只要你的立足點不穩,你的計算結果以及中獎機會總式還會成立嗎?
為甚麼結果中獎機會都是1/2?
你說的四個中獎conditions頭兩個加埋(不換而中)先得1/3,而非你所說的1/2,你對此有何回應?
難道我擲毫連擲10次公後,第十一次擲公的機會不是1/2?
其實,已知一個是女的情況下,另一個,一係男,一係女,女男同男女其實完全一樣,只是你分不清而已
[[i] Last edited by kaichun88 on 2007-3-17 at 03:51 PM [/i]]
[quote]Originally posted by [i]qqwqqwqqw1[/i] at 2007-3-17 11:47 AM:
我既睇法有d唔同,智識會退化,新既... [/quote]
我明你講咩
所以我只會同有相應知識ge人討論相應ge問題(例如我會同playplay討論咁)
大家明ge,咪一齊討論切磋lor,係咁ge情況我好樂意分享我ge見解
咁但係話不投機半句多ga ma
我明ge,我去同人講,人地唔信加唔明,咁有咩辦法?
咁我就唔會同哥d人講呢類ge問題
特別有d人,自己唔信之餘仲要對人惡言相向,講唔掂就話人鬼辯
唉~點解仲要同佢講,就算講到佢唔識回咀,佢都唔會心服口服,因為佢從一開始已認定你係錯佢係0岩,咁講落去無意思的ma
倒不如同明白道理ge人一齊傾計好過啦~係咪?
[quote]Originally posted by [i]ronja[/i] at 2007-3-17 01:00 PM:
thanks for telling me that you do not understand the first question
but please don't make the 1st question become the 2nd question,that's the reason why i ask the 1st question! [/quote]
Would you please telling me what is your reason why you ask the first question?
Can you explain why the ratio of switching to not switching must be 1:1?
Can you explain why the probability of winning the game must be 50%?
Do you have any evidence for supporting your assumption that the ratio of switching to not switching is 1:1?
thanks for telling me that you do not know how to read other's replies and superficially
blame others for misunderstanding the question instead of answering other's questions with expanaton.
I have not ever mixed up the two question.Please read the following quoted statement carefully.
[quote]Originally posted by [i]kaichun88[/i] at 2007-3-17 12:32 AM:
1.那依照機會率來說，你應否改變你的選擇呢??? [color=Blue]應該,因為改變選擇後勝出的機會是2/3[/color]
2.如果我說改變選擇,會提高中獎機會,那你會認同嗎??? [color=Blue]認同,不改變選擇的中獎機會一直是1/3,改變選擇後勝出的機會卻是2/3[/color]
3. 你認同A網友的那一些說法???為甚麽 [color=Blue]不認同,A網友的揀波case引諭失當,假如,A網友問天才揀中白波的機會,天才會答1/2,而非A網友的1/3,理由好簡單,在揀波case中,玩者不會在抽黑波之前選波,自然地,沒有換與不換的抉擇,抽黑波後,可獨善其身在餘下的兩個波中抽出白波[/color][color=Red][size=6]但換門case玩家在捒門後,主持人有擇開及任開兩情況,雖說,擇開及任開均有兩個組合,但兩者比重不同(任開只佔1/3),固此,門的性質一樣,但擇開及任開性質不同,因此,對換錯與錯換對之比並不一樣[/size][/color][/quote]
[quote]Originally posted by [i]kaichun88[/i] at 2007-3-16 10:29 PM:
[color=Red][size=6]Only[/size][/color] when [color=Red][size=6]the chance of switching the choice is equal to that of not switching the choice[/size][/color],[color=Red][size=6]the general probability of winning the game is [/size][/color]1/3(the winning probability of not switching)x1/2+2/3(the winning probability of switching)x1/2=[color=Red][size=6]50%[/size][/color].[/quote]
[quote]Originally posted by [i]kaichun88[/i] at 2007-3-17 06:46 AM:
[color=Red][size=6]#122已經提過,假設轉選擇的比率是1/2並不合理,在此不再詳述,其實,你應看出了參賽者的中獎機會率仍是1/2是基於假設轉選擇的比率是1/2的關鍵,但假設在換車题目中並不成立,所以,我才會說單單計算勝出機率是沒有意義,因為,勝出機率與轉選擇的比率有關,題目又何來反映参賽者轉選擇的比率?[/size][/color][/quote]
[[i] Last edited by kaichun88 on 2007-3-17 at 03:53 PM [/i]]
[quote]Originally posted by [i]ronja[/i] at 2007-3-15 01:24 AM:
根據佢講嘅condition,在打開一度空門之後,是不可能有對換對或錯換錯的情況出現的
而在打開一度空門之後(注意condition已轉了),由於當時只得換或不換,而換的話亦只得一個選擇(並不是一開始有三個選擇),所以機會率是二分之一[/quote]
不論在擇開或任開的情況下,換的話亦只得一個選擇,但是,擇開(錯換對)和任開(對換錯)分別機率不同,勝出機會率並不是二分之一,即使只得一個選擇,換而中是2/3,不換而中1/3,condition已轉了也不會對自己的門有影響
[quote]Originally posted by [i]kaichun88[/i] at 2007-3-17 15:32:
Would you please telling me what ... [/quote]
:eek::eek:Can't you read???:confused:
[quote]
[color=Red]but please don't make the 1st question become the 2nd question,that's the reason why i ask the 1st question! [/color][/quote]
and i only said you do not understand the 1st question,i didn't say you misunderstand the 1st question!!if you cannot express properly in english,as you had already using the same sentence structure as mine for more than once to express your view,you can switch to chinese,i can read chinese as well.but next time,do not ask a question that i had already answered!
:D:D
[quote]Originally posted by [i]ronja[/i] at 2007-3-17 05:03 PM:
:eek::eek:Can't you read???:con... [/quote]
You haven't answered any questions in #145 yet(except the first question).I don't think I cannot express properly in english.If you can express properly in english.Can you answer the following questions?
Can you explain why the ratio of switching to not switching must be 1:1?
[quote]Can you explain why the ratio of switching to not switching must be 1:1?
Can you explain why the probability of winning the game must be 50%?
Do you have any evidence for supporting your assumption that the ratio of switching to not switching is 1:1?[/quote]
Sorry,you can't.:hitwall::hitwall::hitwall::hitwall::hitwall:
I should not ask a question that you had already answered,this is my mistake .However,If you want me not to ask a question that you had already answered,please also answer my questions that you had not answered yet first.Other than that,I think you cannot answer questions with english properly since you always avoid answering my questions.Indeed,I don't mind the fact that you cannot answer questions with english properly because you are only a small pototo.What a stubborn guy.The one who avoid admitting former misdeed cannot become a scholar for good. :D:D:D:D:D
If I say "勝出機率與轉選擇的比率有關,題目又何來反映参賽者轉選擇的比率?"
"The general probabiliy for winning the game depends on the probability for player to switch the choice.The problem have not ever mentioned the probability for player switching the choice."
Do you agree?Why?:dev:
[[i] Last edited by kaichun88 on 2007-3-17 at 09:04 PM [/i]]
[quote]Originally posted by [i]kaichun88[/i] at 2007-3-17 18:48:
You haven't answered any question... [/quote]
try to read #55
it's in chinese:dev:
[quote]Originally posted by [i]ronja[/i] at 2007-3-16 10:57 AM:
一見當初原以為已解決之問題,又有這麼多意見....
其實一早巳提出嘅一個重點就係 define the condition 嘅問題,但大家响討論時不斷將兩個不同情况下觀衆中獎之機會率混為一談.
我諗要問清楚條問題先:
1.玩呢個遊戲嘅觀眾中獎嘅機會率係幾多?
2.玩呢個遊戲嘅觀眾响主持人開咗一度空門(一定是空啦!!)之後轉呔而中獎嘅機會率又係幾多?
如果咁問法, 我答案係:
1.二分之一
2.三分之二
大家又有咩意見呢?
Please clearly 'define your condition' b4 you comment on it.[/quote]
覆多次,等你心服口服,本人一直認為玩呢個遊戲嘅觀眾中獎嘅機會率係幾多是取決於轉換選擇機會率,但是,問題有提到轉換選擇機會率嗎?假如你認為有,請提出證據
假如轉換選擇機會率是p/q
觀眾中獎嘅機會率=2/3xp/q+1/3x(1-p/q) 你同意嗎?
你認為1.二分之一是基於你已假設轉換選擇機會率是1/2,對嗎?
乜我有不明白你的問題一嗎?定係你問题一的假設桹本就有問題?
至於認為我把兩個問題混為一談,請提出證據
而且,根本個condition好清楚,冇define的必要,refer to #146,所以,我才叫你'read the question carefully''read the replies carefully'但你read完之後仲係度回避問題,究竟,你智力有問题所以答唔到,定係表達能力有問題所以答唔到?又話我冇比解釋就否定你的問題一,我先後不少於五次提到問题一的假設桹本就有問題,係你一直視而不見啫,你可以一直回避我提出的問題,但只會更如顯得你的無知同埋固執:hitwall:
(用中文,費事比人捉字蚤,又話not undedstand(不明白),唔係misunderstand(誤解),兩字意義上是有分別,但用錯此字會導致觀眾中獎嘅機會率=2/3xp/q+1/3x(1-p/q)有差異嗎?與其就人小錯大造文章,倒不如檢討自己為何在轉換選擇機會率上犯上邏輯上的大毛病):D:D:D
[[i] Last edited by kaichun88 on 2007-3-17 at 09:23 PM [/i]]
[quote]Originally posted by [i]ronja[/i] at 2007-3-17 07:37 PM:
try to read #55
it's in chinese:dev: [/quote]
[quote]Originally posted by [i]hold_find[/i] at 2007-3-15 02:20 AM:
我明白佢講乜la
佢意思係"如果中獎，有換門的機會是2/3，冇換門的機會是1/3"，而我們一直持的觀點是"有換門的中獎是1/2，與冇換門一樣"
以數學來說，假設中獎為A，換門為B，playbr2說的是(B|A=2/3)，而我跟你所說的是(A=1/2) (有讀過概率的人就會明) ，所以根本一開始我們所算的"題目"就不同
[/quote]
#55有解到Can you explain why the ratio of switching to not switching must be 1:1?
嗎?:confused:
Sorry,我完全不同意佢有解到,一句'有讀過概率的人就會明'都叫解釋?而且,playbr2兄的意思決不是如果中獎，有換門的機會是2/3，冇換門的機會是1/3(佢從冇假設過轉換選擇機會率,不要曲解別人的意思)他一直認為換而中是2/3,不換而中是1/3,究竟係你睇唔明#148的英文問題問乜:dev:,定係你睇唔明playbr2的中文:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
[quote]Originally posted by [i]playbr2[/i] at 2007-3-15 12:49 AM:
話比你知.......背後支持e個題目既論点(2/3),更加權威!!!!:D:D:D:D:D [/quote]
[[i] Last edited by kaichun88 on 2007-3-17 at 08:14 PM [/i]]
用[quote]Originally posted by [i]ronja[/i] at 2007-3-17 05:03 PM:
:eek::eek:Can't you read???:con... [/quote]
:D:D:D:D:D年終唔少人有用同你一模一樣的sentence structure,難道他們也不能express with english properly,假如,我用同你一模一樣的sentence structure可反駁你的view,又有何不可,要知道用同你一模一樣的sentence structure容易,可用來反駁別人的觀點卻不簡單,而且,在我幾篇英文回履亦可見我有用其他的與你不同的sentence structure,我只是回應题目,不是作文,不必用到華麗的英文,也不必用太多不同的sentence structure,你都識講,我用同你一模一樣的sentence structure超過一次,但並不是全部用晒完全同你一模一樣的sentence structure是嗎,另外,你有能力用同我一模一樣的sentence structure反駁我嗎?而且,你比較下,是否覺得我以下那句同你一模一樣的sentence structure的句子青出於藍?:D:D:D:D:D
[quote]Originally posted by [i]ronja[/i] at 2007-3-17 01:00 PM:
thanks for telling me that you do not understand the first question [/quote]
[quote]Originally posted by [i]kaichun88[/i] at 2007-3-17 03:32 PM:
thanks for telling me that you do not know how to read other's replies and superficially
blame others for not understanding the question instead of answering other's questions with expanaton.
[/quote]
唔用thank,可用grateful:D:D:D:D:D
[quote]Originally posted by [i]kaichun88[/i]
I am grateful to you for telling me that you do not know how to read other's replies and superficially blame others for not understanding the question instead of answering other's questions with expanaton.
[/quote]
[[i] Last edited by kaichun88 on 2007-3-17 at 09:01 PM [/i]]
[quote]Originally posted by [i]ronja[/i] at 2007-3-17 05:03 PM:
:eek::eek:Can't you read???:con... [/quote]
"Can't you read?" is correct in grammar,but incorrect in logic.:gun::dev:
The one who can't read means that he has no ability to read,I am not blind.In this case,you should write "Have you ever read the quoted statement below?":D:D:D
[quote]Originally posted by [i]kaichun88[/i] at 2007-3-17 02:53 PM:
係喎,你啱喎,咁我問你,已知生了五個... [/quote]
我再說一次，"已知其中一個是女孩子"[color=Red]不等於[/color]"第一個生的是女孩子"
"女男同男女一樣"，那是指出現的機會一樣，但計算時是要算2次的(男女1次，女男1次)
我做個比喻：買馬
你買1號第1，2號第2，但跑出來是2號第1，1號第2，雖然都是1,2號第1,2，但你也不算贏吧(我沒買馬，不知道是否有安慰獎)
再說，生女的機會是1/2，這是一次生孩子的機會，現在算的是2次生孩子合起來的機會
生2個女=1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4
第2次生女=1/2
已知其中一個是女孩子，兩個都是女孩子= (1/4) / (3/4) = 1/3
組合有 男女 女男 女女 ，其中只有女女符合
至於你問"已知生了五個兒子的情況下,第六個也是兒子的概率係幾多"，我的答案的確不是1/2，應該是1/7
生6個男=1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/64
第6次生男=1/2
已知其中5個是男孩子，6個都是男孩子= (1/64) / (7/64) =1/7
組合有 女男男男男男 男女男男男男 男男女男男男 男男男女男男 男男男男女男 男男男男男女 男男男男男男 ，其中只有男男男男男男符合
至於玩家轉換選擇機會率，對一般人(沒有深入想這問題的人)來說應該是1/2，因為他們不知道那個選擇是中獎，轉或不轉是隨機的，這情況下，中獎的機會是1/2
由始至終我都沒說過轉換選擇機會率是2/3，我只是說"一般人(定義見上)中有中獎的人，其中2/3有中獎"，請別曲解我的說話
我再說一次我的意思，假設有6人參加遊戲，而結果是理想的(實際機會合符計算，沒有運氣成份的誤差)，結果應為：
(中獎-不轉)(中獎-轉)(中獎-轉)(不中獎-不轉)(不中獎-不轉)(不中獎-轉) (最下方我說的話的意思)
對聰明的玩家，他們一定轉選擇，把所有"不轉"剔除，令結果變成
(中獎-轉)(中獎-轉)(不中獎-轉) (最下方playbr2說的話的意思)
所以在"已知一定轉選擇"之下，中獎機會為2/3
此為我朋友之見解#72(我亦同意)
你再問"擲毫連擲10次公後,第十一次擲公的機會不是1/2?"
注意你的問題是"擲毫連擲10次公後"，代表一定頭10次是公，而你問"第十一次擲公"是只計算1次(第11次)，那機會當然是1/2
擲11次公=1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/2048
第11次擲公=1/2
已知擲了10次公，擲11次公 = (1/2048) / (12/2048) = 1/12
[quote]Originally posted by [i]kaichun88[/i] at 2007-3-17 08:07 PM:
#55有解到Can you explain why ... [/quote]
我一句'有讀過概率的人就會明'係指個"|"的符號，有讀過概率的人會更明白我所說的，冇讀過概率的人咪睇字lo
至於"如果中獎，有換門的機會是2/3，冇換門的機會是1/3"跟"換而中是2/3,不換而中是1/3"沒有衝突，根本是兩回事，只因答案都是2/3，你混淆了，解釋見上(我承認當時我也因同一理由誤解了playbr2的話)
如果轉而中的機會係大d, 咁電視台咪好on居? 係人都轉啦 !
又如果係100度門, 咁換而中的機會是多小? (主持開餘下98度空門)
咁 1000 度門 換而中的機會是否又高 d? (主持開餘下998度空門)
咁 10000 度門 換而中的機會是否又再高 d? (主持開餘下9998度空門)
問問吓又好似換而中的機會真係高d喎! 電視台真係好on居喎!
主持人幫你清除哂其他d"空"門! 咁箸數, 一定要換啦, 門愈多愈要換.
[[i] Last edited by netharmon on 2007-3-18 at 01:21 AM [/i]]
[quote]Originally posted by [i]hold_find[/i] at 2007-3-18 12:00 AM:
我再說一次，"已知其中一個是... [/quote]
組合與排列是有分別,組合是不計較次序,排列是計,在組合中,男女=女男,在排列中,男女≠女男,在已知其中一個是女孩子,另一個是女的機率這問題中,應考慮組合(不明可問我),所以,組合有 :男女 女女，其中只有女女符合,答案是1/2
買馬計組合,買六合彩計排序, 我當然不算贏,但生女問題中,應考慮組合,所以是1/2,假如問有兩人排隊,已知其中一個是女孩子,列隊女女的機率,才是你1/3的答案
至於,已知生了五個兒子的情況下,第六個也是兒子的概率係幾多? 答案是1/2
(道理同上)
至於玩家轉換選擇機會率,令人覺得你認為轉換選擇機會率是2/3是基於以下三個原因:
[color=Blue]1[/color].你在#154前並沒有提到有轉換選擇機會率對一般人(沒有深入想這問題的人)來說應該是1/2的假設,也沒有解釋
[color=Blue]2[/color].你在#64和#121的文字令人認為你有轉換選擇機會率是2/3的想法,也令人覺得你不認同”換而中是2/3,不換而中是1/3”
[quote]Originally posted by [i]hold_find[/i] at 2007-3-15 12:43 PM:
... 不管換或不換，結果中獎機會都是1/2...如果中獎，有換門的機會是2/3，冇換門的機會是1/3...在3個中獎的人中，有2個有換門"，而非3個參賽者換門有2個中獎"[/quote]
[quote]Originally posted by [i]hold_find[/i] at 2007-3-16 08:59 PM:
2.如果我說改變選擇,會提高中獎機會,那你會認同嗎???
答案是不會，因為中獎機會一直是1/2，計算結果,程式實驗(我的程式,Stimulator)都是這樣說[/quote]
[color=Blue]3[/color].站在別人的角度,你那句”不管換或不換，結果中獎機會都是1/2”和”非3個參賽者換門有2個中獎” 令人覺得你一直在否認”換而中是2/3,不換而中是1/3”
至於我在#151的回覆,不是針對你,而是#55確實沒有解釋為何轉換選擇機會率是1/2,你在#154才真正解釋為何轉換選擇機會率是1/2,只是有人答非所問,想拖你落水去回避我的問題,他打算用你#55去回答我在#148的全部問題,看看合不合理?
由於我一定轉選擇,我不是沒有深入想這問題的人,所以我一直不了解為何轉換選擇機會率是1/2,但我一直強調,總中奨機率與轉換選擇機會率有關,中奨機率=50%只適用於轉換選擇機會率是1/2的情況下,同時,”有換門的機會是2/3，冇換門的機會是1/3"跟"換而中是2/3,不換而中是1/3"沒有衝突亦是只適用於轉換選擇機會率是1/2的情況下,因此,我並沒有混淆,只是一直冇人解釋為何轉換選擇機會率是1/2而已(只得你有解),不過,樓主的問題一已假設我們全是有深入想這問題的人,我們轉換選擇機會率應是1(換),不然,他也不會問"依照機會率來說，你應否改變你的選擇呢?"轉換選擇機會率是1/2只會對無知的人方可成立
[quote]Originally posted by [i]netharmon[/i] at 2007-3-18 12:14 AM:
如果轉而中的機會係大d, 咁電視台咪好... [/quote]
好多謝你以理性的角度而非數學的角度去解答數學問題(你連proof都冇)
我又用番你的理性的角度去解答數學問題先,試看看合不合理
如果中六合彩頭奨真是1/13983816([size=1]49[/size]C[size=1]6[/size])咁細,咁買嗰D人咪好on居? 係人都唔買啦 !馬會聽執笠啦!又如果買3T,機會是否又再低 d？（謎之聲：係低好多）
問問吓又好似買3T真係低d喎! 馬迷真係好on居喎!
奉獻晒d人工比馬會，養肥政府同慈善機構，一定要發起七百萬人上街，要求政府立即接埋馬會，同埋嘔番晒d外匯儲備同政府庫房去賠償番多年黎賭仔嘅損失:hitwall:
假如你覺得合理，倒不如去睇睇醫生先，不要毀滅藍星:D
既然你覺得不合理，為何你居然唔用數學證明去證數學命題？你以為自己是社會學家，還是空想家？
[quote]Originally posted by [i]kaichun88[/i] at 2007-3-18 06:26 AM:
組合與排列是有分別,組合是不計較次... [/quote]
男女問題，請見圖girlboy
為何"已知其中一個是女孩子,列隊女女的機率"跟"已知其中一個是女孩子,另一個是女的機率"不同呢？
就我理解"已知其中一個是女孩子,另一個是女的機率"跟"已知其中一個是女孩子,生下女女的機率"是一樣的，生孩子也是一個一個生吧，雙胞胎也是先出一個上再出第二個吧
至於"#154前並沒有提到有轉換選擇機會率對一般人(沒有深入想這問題的人)來說應該是1/2的假設"，這是我的疏忽
"#64和#121的文字令人認為你有轉換選擇機會率是2/3的想法,也令人覺得你不認同”換而中是2/3,不換而中是1/3”"，也許我的文字不太好，令人誤會
而"樓主的問題一已假設我們全是有深入想這問題的人"，我沒有想到這問題，所以才把一般人也計算在內
由於我的文字可能不太好，請忘記我之前的話，我用圖再說一次我的看法
一般人:normal
聰明人:smart
[quote]Originally posted by [i]kaichun88[/i] at 2007-3-17 15:32:
thanks for telling me that you do not know how to read other's replies and superficially
blame others for misunderstanding the question instead of answering other's questions with [color=Red]expanaton[/color].
[/quote]
真係青出於籃:dev:
[quote]Originally posted by [i]ronja[/i] at 2007-3-18 03:45 PM:
真係青出於籃:dev: [/quote]
你又再次回避我的問題,捉typing mistake咁叻,計數同邏輯咁渣,真係英文達人,邏輯白癡
更正:explanation
#112可證明是我的無心之失,大佬,我依幾日打左成幾萬字,打錯字有乜出奇,好過你連can't you read ?都用錯,你咪仲廢
[[i] Last edited by kaichun88 on 2007-3-18 at 07:23 PM [/i]]