Sir, I was thinking about this .we not imaged like an overthinker, an escaper. Because we imagine like a simulation make person to solve simulation and In this case, we think as a overthinker. So we predict other human mind----- like a biologist 😅 but the probability is this other person tells lie------ like a mathematics In 2 times, we assumed owner self like a simulation maker, then like हमें ज्यादा पीछे जाना नहि हो या हो क्योंकि like Car have some property like physical and law of physics property so According to Quantem physics Every thing is present in Quantem wave like Fluctuations so every thing show difference in large size & Small size . - - - - - - a small thinker physics
The "possibilities" you explained are basically 3 different, separate games where the car didn't move and you picked a different door each time. This will go down as the biggest hoax in mathematics history. The error you've made is your 2/3 probability to not get the car - that's (1-X). The person who first made this claim was referring to the two goats, so you have twice the probability to pick one of the two goats so you must have twice the probability to switch to the door with the car. That's why the show creator inferred two of the same item in those two doors, to trick you into thinking you have twice the probability to not pick the car. Put a dog and a goat each behind the other two doors and it becomes clearer to you. You have a 1/3 probability to pick a door with the car, a 1/3 probability to pick a door with the dog and a 1/3 probability to pick a door with the goat. Same with the reductio ad absurdum videos all over YT using a 100 door example. Put a different item each behind a door, a shoe, an empty box, a pile of dog crap, it doesn't matter. Just leave one door for the car and one door for the goat. You will see VERY CLEARLY that your probabilities to pick the door with the car and the door with the goat are EXACTLY 1/100 the same. In 1975, the "Albert Einstein of Mathematics" Paul Erdos, made it abundantly clear that the 2/3 always switch theory was incorrect. He only relented because the simulations shown to him were all 2/3 switch. In 2024, there are ChatGPT, Python and other AI to isolate the error in those simulations for everyday people such as myself to clearly see. "Picking" a door is not the same as "picking" a door, being able to "open that door" and also "get the item behind that door" for the prize. Don't believe me? Simulate a problem but this time allow the host to also eliminate the door WITH the car. You still have a 1/3 probability to pick the car and 2/3 if you switch! 1. What is the player's probability to pick Door A, open Door A to get the car? 2. What is the player's probability to pick Door B, open Door B to get the car? 3. What is the player's probability to pick Door C, open Door C to get the car? 4. What is the player's probability to pick Door A, open Door A to get the dog? 5. What is the player's probability to pick Door B, open Door B to get the dog? 6. What is the player's probability to pick Door C, open Door C to get the dog? 7. What is the player's probability to pick Door A, open Door A to get the goat? 8. What is the player's probability to pick Door B, open Door B to get the goat? 9. What is the player's probability to pick Door C, open Door C to get the goat? If you coded your sim correctly, you will see that after the host eliminates a door entirely, you have an equal probability to pick the door you already picked, stay, open that door to get the car, or pick the only other remaining door, switch, open that door to get the car. This is for you, Paul. I'd take your word with regards to anything to do with math over a Sunday columnist for a celebrity newspaper magazine any day of the week. #SorryTheyDoubtedYouPaul
Thankyou so much sir🙏
vote for 2016 rotation question 👇👇
Sir please make a video on bernoullis equation
sir please make a video on centre of mass frame
Green mein goat ka kya matlab hai sir?
jee adv pyq series chahiye sir 😢😊❤❤
21 movie
Sir, I was thinking about this .we not imaged like an overthinker, an escaper. Because we imagine like a simulation make person to solve simulation and
In this case, we think as a overthinker. So we predict other human mind----- like a biologist 😅 but the probability is this other person tells lie------ like a mathematics
In 2 times, we assumed owner self like a simulation maker, then like
हमें ज्यादा पीछे जाना नहि हो या हो क्योंकि like Car have some property like physical and law of physics property
so According to Quantem physics Every thing is present in Quantem wave like Fluctuations
so every thing show difference in large size & Small size . - - - - - - a small thinker physics
Arey kehna kya chahte ho
The "possibilities" you explained are basically 3 different, separate games where the car didn't move and you picked a different door each time.
This will go down as the biggest hoax in mathematics history.
The error you've made is your 2/3 probability to not get the car - that's (1-X). The person who first made this claim was referring to the two goats, so you have twice the probability to pick one of the two goats so you must have twice the probability to switch to the door with the car.
That's why the show creator inferred two of the same item in those two doors, to trick you into thinking you have twice the probability to not pick the car. Put a dog and a goat each behind the other two doors and it becomes clearer to you. You have a 1/3 probability to pick a door with the car, a 1/3 probability to pick a door with the dog and a 1/3 probability to pick a door with the goat.
Same with the reductio ad absurdum videos all over YT using a 100 door example. Put a different item each behind a door, a shoe, an empty box, a pile of dog crap, it doesn't matter. Just leave one door for the car and one door for the goat. You will see VERY CLEARLY that your probabilities to pick the door with the car and the door with the goat are EXACTLY 1/100 the same.
In 1975, the "Albert Einstein of Mathematics" Paul Erdos, made it abundantly clear that the 2/3 always switch theory was incorrect. He only relented because the simulations shown to him were all 2/3 switch.
In 2024, there are ChatGPT, Python and other AI to isolate the error in those simulations for everyday people such as myself to clearly see. "Picking" a door is not the same as "picking" a door, being able to "open that door" and also "get the item behind that door" for the prize.
Don't believe me? Simulate a problem but this time allow the host to also eliminate the door WITH the car. You still have a 1/3 probability to pick the car and 2/3 if you switch!
1. What is the player's probability to pick Door A, open Door A to get the car?
2. What is the player's probability to pick Door B, open Door B to get the car?
3. What is the player's probability to pick Door C, open Door C to get the car?
4. What is the player's probability to pick Door A, open Door A to get the dog?
5. What is the player's probability to pick Door B, open Door B to get the dog?
6. What is the player's probability to pick Door C, open Door C to get the dog?
7. What is the player's probability to pick Door A, open Door A to get the goat?
8. What is the player's probability to pick Door B, open Door B to get the goat?
9. What is the player's probability to pick Door C, open Door C to get the goat?
If you coded your sim correctly, you will see that after the host eliminates a door entirely, you have an equal probability to pick the door you already picked, stay, open that door to get the car, or pick the only other remaining door, switch, open that door to get the car.
This is for you, Paul. I'd take your word with regards to anything to do with math over a Sunday columnist for a celebrity newspaper magazine any day of the week. #SorryTheyDoubtedYouPaul
1st comment 😁
🤡🤡
Net gya chl nhi rhi video