Marilyn vos Savant.com – Game Show ProblemArchivado el 10 de marzo de 2010 en Wayback Machine., 9 de septiembre de 1990 (inglés): Suppose you’re on a game show, and you’re given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car, the others, goats. You pick a door, say #1, and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door, say #3, which has a goat. He says to you: ‘Do you want to pick door #2?’ Is it to your advantage to switch your choice of doors?
Marilyn vos Savant.com – Game Show ProblemArchivado el 10 de marzo de 2010 en Wayback Machine., 2 de diciembre de 1990 (inglés): […] The benefits of switching are readily proven by playing through the six games that exhaust all the possibilities. For the first three games, you choose #1 and “switch” each time, for the second three games, you choose #1 and “stay” each time, and the host always opens a loser. Here are the results:
Marilyn vos Savant.com – Game Show ProblemArchivado el 10 de marzo de 2010 en Wayback Machine., 17 de febrero de 1991 (inglés): The original answer is still correct, and the key to it lies in the question, “Should you switch?” Suppose we pause at that point, and a UFO settles down onto the stage. A little green woman emerges, and the host asks her to point to one of the two unopened doors. The chances that she’ll randomly choose the one with the prize are 1/2, all right. But that’s because she lacks the advantage the original contestant had—the help of the host. (Try to forget any particular television show.) When you first choose door #1 from three, there’s a 1/3 chance that the prize is behind that one and a 2/3 chance that it’s behind one of the others. But then the host steps in and gives you a clue. If the prize is behind #2, the host shows you #3, and if the prize is behind #3, the host shows you #2. So when you switch, you win if the prize is behind #2 or #3. You win either way! But if you don’t switch, you win only if the prize is behind door #1. […]
Marilyn vos Savant.com – Game Show ProblemArchivado el 10 de marzo de 2010 en Wayback Machine., 9 de septiembre de 1990 (inglés): Suppose you’re on a game show, and you’re given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car, the others, goats. You pick a door, say #1, and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door, say #3, which has a goat. He says to you: ‘Do you want to pick door #2?’ Is it to your advantage to switch your choice of doors?
Marilyn vos Savant.com – Game Show ProblemArchivado el 10 de marzo de 2010 en Wayback Machine., 2 de diciembre de 1990 (inglés): […] The benefits of switching are readily proven by playing through the six games that exhaust all the possibilities. For the first three games, you choose #1 and “switch” each time, for the second three games, you choose #1 and “stay” each time, and the host always opens a loser. Here are the results:
Marilyn vos Savant.com – Game Show ProblemArchivado el 10 de marzo de 2010 en Wayback Machine., 17 de febrero de 1991 (inglés): The original answer is still correct, and the key to it lies in the question, “Should you switch?” Suppose we pause at that point, and a UFO settles down onto the stage. A little green woman emerges, and the host asks her to point to one of the two unopened doors. The chances that she’ll randomly choose the one with the prize are 1/2, all right. But that’s because she lacks the advantage the original contestant had—the help of the host. (Try to forget any particular television show.) When you first choose door #1 from three, there’s a 1/3 chance that the prize is behind that one and a 2/3 chance that it’s behind one of the others. But then the host steps in and gives you a clue. If the prize is behind #2, the host shows you #3, and if the prize is behind #3, the host shows you #2. So when you switch, you win if the prize is behind #2 or #3. You win either way! But if you don’t switch, you win only if the prize is behind door #1. […]
YouTube: Marilyn Mach Vos Savant – Feb. 1986 Air date: Actually, I’ve lived under a pseudonym for many years now. […] That’s because I was writing, and I wanted to avoid possible premature publication. I wanted to get decent enough before the work was published.
