"Your honor, with all due respect: if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it."
Fictitious Boston Attorney Frank Galvin (Paul Newman - January 26, 1925 - September 26, 2008) in The Verdict, 1982, lambasting Trial Judge Hoyle (Milo Donal O'Shea - June 2, 1926 - April 2, 2013) - http://imdb.com/title/tt0084855/
BoSox, no issues. I truly liked Tthree, Three, not so much. He is extremely bright, in the sense of your 12 year old who wants to show you why you were wrong in determining how much to tip the waiter/waitress. You didn't need to multiply the bill by 10%, and then multiply it by 50% of that to get 15%. He explains to you why it is much easier to use differential calculus and whatever branch of mathematics quadratic equations is used.
As for not liking lawyer jokes, over the course of the last 30 years, I haven't met too many lawyers that I actually liked. Oh, sorry, you said lawyer jokes. I thought you said lawyers. Never mind. Same difference!
"Your honor, with all due respect: if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it."
Fictitious Boston Attorney Frank Galvin (Paul Newman - January 26, 1925 - September 26, 2008) in The Verdict, 1982, lambasting Trial Judge Hoyle (Milo Donal O'Shea - June 2, 1926 - April 2, 2013) - http://imdb.com/title/tt0084855/
"Your honor, with all due respect: if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it."
Fictitious Boston Attorney Frank Galvin (Paul Newman - January 26, 1925 - September 26, 2008) in The Verdict, 1982, lambasting Trial Judge Hoyle (Milo Donal O'Shea - June 2, 1926 - April 2, 2013) - http://imdb.com/title/tt0084855/
Moses, this below link was their first appearance on the show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yyB06HvAjI
As I wrote earlier, we have given two boxes, one X and the other 2X. THIS IS THE TERMS OF THE TASK !!! We opened one casket. In our problem, either X or 2X is always opened, and we do not know what exactly was opened - but it is NOT a fault to come up with some new values ??of sums not specified in the condition of the problem. Then, if this box X, then with a probability of 100% we will be given a replacement for the box 2X. If this box is 2X, then with a probability of 100% we will be given a replacement box for X.
But we CAN NOT say that we will ever be given a casket with 1 / 2X, as there is NO such box at all !!!
If someone wants to insist that after taking a box with X money we can open a casket with 1 / 2X money, then this someone MUST change the conditions of the task and say that we have two boxes X and 1/2. And then the casket with 2X money will cease to exist, which again shows the error in the solution selected above.
In other words, we do not have the right to name the amount of money in the chosen box as X and from this amount to determine 2 possible value propositions in the second box. The given conditions of our specific task DO NOT ALLOW us to do so - this is a mistake. The trick is that we really get 50/50 or more, in relation to the amount in the opened box, or a smaller amount, but these 50/50 should not be substituted in the formula for calculating the expectation of this action (the choice of the second box), because by choosing the first We are already bogged down in the given conditions of the problem! We do not have boxes with 1 / 2X, since the probabilities are dependent on us.
"Don't Cast Your Pearls Before Swine" (Jesus)
The funny thing is that the very first action (when we take any box of two, one of which is X money, and the other - 2X) ALREADY has EV = 1.5X !!! Therefore, it should not be surprising that the EV decision to replace the box has the SAME 1.5X, that is, we take the contents of the first box or change it to the second one - the EV equally for that and for another case. That is the answer - it makes no difference whether or not to change.
Last edited by Gramazeka; 02-19-2018 at 06:47 PM.
"Don't Cast Your Pearls Before Swine" (Jesus)
Bookmarks