Hello, Tweedledee2011, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Not true - you are teetering on the edge of a 3RR violation - see Wikipedia:Edit warring. Pluse you are bullying me. And you are interfering with my final post to a very lengthy dialog. You are so obsessed with your vigilance that you can't even comprehended that the issue I raised at Talk:Monty Hall problem is about the article. Take a minute and think carefully about my final post - and if you are honest with yourself, you'll see that I raise a valid question about the article's failure to clarify an important distinction. I have very few edits compared to you, so certainly this Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers is applicable here. You are indeed attacking me in a manner contrary to the spirit of this wiki Tweedledee2011 (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are sure about this, you can always report me. WP:BITE doesn't apply, you have been given ample warning, yet failed to properly address the concerns given or to consider the compromises offered. Paradoctor (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I ma not being disruptive and you are trying to cheat around 3rr by raising a false allegation. I've made a perfectly reasonable final post to a long dialog and you are interfering with it. Tweedledee2011 (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tweedledee, I agree that some users are being a bit heavy handed here. Your post is ultimately about improving the Monty Hall problem article. I for one would not support a block for just posting on-topic comments on an article talk page. On the other hand, you can easily continue a sensible and civil discussion of the Monty Hall problem on the Talk:Monty_Hall_problem/Arguments without becoming embroiled in a pointless battle. One of the amazing things about the MHP is the strong feelings that it can evoke. I look forward to discussing the subject with you at Talk:Monty_Hall_problem/Arguments. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Martin - thank you. I think you are right, but if we do not summarize our discussion results and repost them to the article talk page, the target audience of novices who find the article via a google search won't see the discussion. Did you see my summation here: [1] Here it is again:
(Responding to Martin) Nobody is disputing that the car is found 2/3 of the time by switching. Rather, what I am saying is that this article glosses over the trick aspects of this questions such that it does a the readers a disservice. Because the removed door shrinks the sample space, this raises the question of the carry-over of information between sample spaces. The 1st choice provides a link to the initial, larger sample space. It establishes a place to switch away from. Without that continuity linking to information from the initial set, there would be no context to the 2nd choice and the calculation which proves that switching is better, could not be performed. Suffice it to say, I am not saying that the math is being calculated wrong. Rather, I am saying that it's illegitimate to perform that calculation without explaining the logical justification for using information from a sample space which is not under consideration. Once again: 1) A sample space is a set of all possible outcomes. 2) When the host opens a door, that door is not choose-able by the player any longer. 3) At that point, the outcomes which the removed door potentially had for the player, are no longer available to the player. 4) Because of this fact, this raises the question of whether or not the 2nd choice is a discrete experiment. If it is, then it can not include in it's calculation any information except for information which is part of that experiment. If choice #2 is a discrete experiment, then from the perspective of the player, it's not legitimate to calculate the odds by using information learned when the door was opened. In other words, switching would still win 2/3, but the player can not make that calculation unless he's allowed to use information which came from the prior sample space - which no longer is fully available to him. From his perspective, at the point of the 2nd choice, the player can only see 50/50 - unless he's allowed to use information from a sample space which is not his current one. What I am saying is that this distinction explains why so many people get this question wrong - and as such, it ought to be explained in the article.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
