> I don't believe it's a coincidence that the ill-posed problem gets the high profile attention.
In this case even the well-posed problem(s) can be highly controversial as it can be seen from other comments - including someone who claims that probabilities are meaningless here because "it’s not a repeated game."
> In this case even the well-posed problem(s) can be highly controversial as it can be seen from other comments - including someone who claims that probabilities are meaningless here because "it’s not a repeated game."
I will take a look at such a comment if you link it, but I'm not going to actively search for such comments as I don't plan to play Monty Hall police.
The most intelligent probably just responded on the internet when they first got acquainted with it, and upon realizing the problem is ill-posed just ignore it. So the visible flamewar tends to be between people who don't realize the problem is ill-posed...
“In Monty Hall, you’re just making a guess and no matter how clever you are about it, it’s still just a guess. There is no strategy because the game doesn’t last long enough for strategy to matter.”
The point is that the discussions are not always related to a misunderstanding about the protocol followed by the host to open a door.
Someone else doesn’t accept that (after the host’s protocol is fully specified) the problem is conditional on the stated run on events - insisting that it only makes sense to consider “the whole game”: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36737326
In this case even the well-posed problem(s) can be highly controversial as it can be seen from other comments - including someone who claims that probabilities are meaningless here because "it’s not a repeated game."
> something strange is going on.
The New York Times may be part of it then, I got the second quote from https://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/21/us/behind-monty-hall-s-do...