News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Time Everyone “Corrected” the World’s Smartest Woman ... by ncallaway on Sunday May 09, 2021 @02:43AM (#27093797)
> It is literally explicit in the 1990 rendition.

> 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

Remove the parenthetical example "say #3", and the parenthetical "who knows what's behind the doors" and that sentence reads: "...and the host opens another door which has a goat".

The "has a goat" is not a hypothetical example. It's a (both literal and explicit) declaration of the rules statement. The rules seem very clear that the host will open a door with a goat.

Re:The Time Everyone “Corrected” the World’s Smartest Woman ... by slavik81 on Sunday May 09, 2021 @04:47AM (#27094353)
It matters whether they choose the door because it has a goat vs. they randomly choose a door that happens to have a goat.

It's not explicitly saying the former even when stating the result, because everything is written as a certainty in retrospect. You can say, "the roulette wheel stopped on 00," but it was still a random event when it happened.

Re:The Time Everyone “Corrected” the World’s Smartest Woman ... by dekhn on Sunday May 09, 2021 @09:38AM (#27095817)
nope, it's ambiguous as stated, if you're a literalist.