kaichun88

Originally posted by playbr2 at 2007-3-17 01:01 AM:


我估嗰一題係因為佢一時睇得(2/3)題目太多,所以混淆左轉吾切 channel 姐.......又唔好人身攻擊

我並沒有人身攻擊,說別人是鬼才是一種讚美,是一種奉承,天才是才,鬼才也是才,只是常人較

難理解其想法而已,不過,他真是一時睇得(2/3)題目太多,混淆左轉吾切 channel,要不然,為何

他認為中奨人士中有2/3轉了選擇,但又說勝出機率是1/2?以上兩者產生的結論是換選擇的

比率是2/3

kaichun88

Originally posted by kantang4910 at 2007-3-17 03:34 AM:


非常欣賞伊索寓言中的[皇帝的新衣],到今時今日都仲日日有人重覆演繹呢個故事
任何理論祗要加一句:聰明人至會明,就有擁護者了

我也非常欣賞你的神辯,在無任何論證及理據的情況下,無視別人的理據但就可以否定人家的論證,連最基礎的數學知識也未能掌握,卻在此賣弄文字,還敢稱智力高過神,未兔貽笑大方

[ Last edited by kaichun88 on 2007-3-17 at 07:45 AM ]

kaichun88

Originally posted by hold_find at 2007-3-17 01:09 PM:

你有冇睇清楚題目？
題目係"...

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

[ Last edited by kaichun88 on 2007-3-17 at 03:51 PM ]

kaichun88

Originally posted by ronja 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!

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.

Originally posted by kaichun88 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??? 應該,因為改變選擇後勝出的機會是2/3
2.如果我說改變選擇,會提高中獎機會,那你會認同嗎??? 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
3. 你認同A網友的那一些說法???為甚麽 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

Originally posted by kaichun88 at 2007-3-16 10:29 PM:
Only when the chance of switching the choice is equal to that of not switching the choice,the general probability of winning the game is 1/3(the winning probability of not switching)x1/2+2/3(the winning probability of switching)x1/2=50%.

Originally posted by kaichun88 at 2007-3-17 06:46 AM:
#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?

[ Last edited by kaichun88 on 2007-3-17 at 03:53 PM ]

kaichun88

Originally posted by ronja 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

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

kaichun88

Originally posted by ronja at 2007-3-17 05:03 PM:


Can't you read???:con...

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?

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?

Sorry,you can't.
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.

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?

[ Last edited by kaichun88 on 2007-3-17 at 09:04 PM ]

kaichun88

Originally posted by ronja 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.

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

(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)

[ Last edited by kaichun88 on 2007-3-17 at 09:23 PM ]

kaichun88

Originally posted by ronja at 2007-3-17 07:37 PM:


try to read #55
it's in chinese

Originally posted by hold_find 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

#55有解到Can you explain why the ratio of switching to not switching must be 1:1?
嗎?
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,定係你睇唔明playbr2的中文

Originally posted by playbr2 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!!!!

[ Last edited by kaichun88 on 2007-3-17 at 08:14 PM ]

kaichun88

用

Originally posted by ronja at 2007-3-17 05:03 PM:


Can't you read???:con...

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?

Originally posted by ronja at 2007-3-17 01:00 PM:
thanks for telling me that you do not understand the first question

Originally posted by kaichun88 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.

唔用thank,可用grateful

Originally posted by kaichun88
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.

[ Last edited by kaichun88 on 2007-3-17 at 09:01 PM ]

kaichun88

Originally posted by ronja at 2007-3-17 05:03 PM:


Can't you read???:con...

"Can't you read?" is correct in grammar,but incorrect in logic.
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?"