Yeah, I think it’s better. It highlights the flow of knowledge: where the prize is → host’s knowledge → which door he opens → player’s knowledge.
I’d maybe change the phrase “predictable algorithm”, since the host’s actions aren’t predictable to the player. Maybe
but the door that the host DIDN’T choose is selected on the basis of a predictable algorithm. Namely, having the prize behind it.
could be replaced by
but the door that the host DIDN’T choose is selected on the basis of the host’s knowledge of where the prize is. His choice can therefore give you information about where the prize might be: namely, it’s more likely to be the door he avoided.
Thanks. You’re right, that part should be expanded. How about:
At this point, you have two choices: Either 1. one randomly selected door, or 2. one door among two doors, chosen by the host on the basis of the other not having the prize.
You would have better luck with option 2 because choosing that door is as good as opening two randomly selected doors. That is twice as good as opening one randomly selected door as in option 1.
Yeah, I think it’s better. It highlights the flow of knowledge: where the prize is → host’s knowledge → which door he opens → player’s knowledge.
I’d maybe change the phrase “predictable algorithm”, since the host’s actions aren’t predictable to the player. Maybe
could be replaced by
or something similar?
Thanks. You’re right, that part should be expanded. How about:
At this point, you have two choices: Either 1. one randomly selected door, or 2. one door among two doors, chosen by the host on the basis of the other not having the prize.
You would have better luck with option 2 because choosing that door is as good as opening two randomly selected doors. That is twice as good as opening one randomly selected door as in option 1.
Yeah, I like that.