Simple gambling problem

Originally posted by eldragonfly
If he held up a sliver card then there are only two choices, hence it is a 50/50 bet that the other side of a card showing a sliver side is silver.

If he held up the silver side of a card, there remain three possibilities for the other side:
You could be seeing the obverse side of the S/S card (the other side is silver).
You could be seeing the reverse side of the S/S card (the other side is silver).
You could be seeing the silver side of the G/S card (the other side is gold).

There are three choices, see?

Nemesio

Originally posted by eldragonfly
wrong : But these are probability exercises, not combinatorics. You have to compare the probability of two outcomes to find a solution.

red herring :You haven't properly answered to the last Nemesio's post.

red herring : Did you look at the Monty Hall problem?

a question can easily be wrong, reliant upon circular/superficial reasoning or be just plain misleading, surely you're joking my man. 😳

I was referring to the fact that you wrote "red herring = fallacy". It's neither true or false, it's an argument that does not address the original issue.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
Irrelevant. Ad hominem = fallacy

You should learn the difference between reproach and an ad hominem fallacy. Suppose one were to say "Eldragonfly claims X. But I find eldragonfly's character to be objectionable for reasons a,b,c. Therefore, X is false." That would be an ad hominem fallacy. But now suppose that one were to say that eldragonfly's conduct in this thread has been and continues to be unconscionable because others have carefully and patiently pointed out the obvious flaws in eldragonfly's thinking numerous times and yet eldragonfly continues to declaim smugly to the contrary. That's not an ad hominem fallacy. In this case, that's just keeping it real.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I'm going to play nice, so please play nice, too. No ad hominems between us from now on, okay?
Truce?

Let's look at it this way. There are three cards:
Card 1-Silver/Silver
Card 2-Silver/Gold
Card 3-Gold/Gold

In my analogue, there are three groups:

Group A-Sarah, Rebekah
Group B-Benjamin, Naomi
Group C-Isaac, David

As you can se ...[text shortened]... lar system, perhaps) or how you now understand why you've misunderstood the
math behind it.

What a macaroon! Save your precious breath nemesio, for i have misunderstood nothing my man. i am not even going to read your tired "dumbomatic" rehash of the cards in the hat problem, i find your forced explanation to be worthless, bogus and irritating.

Originally posted by LemonJello
You should learn the difference between reproach and an ad hominem fallacy. Suppose one were to say "Eldragonfly claims X. But I find eldragonfly's character to be objectionable for reasons a,b,c. Therefore, X is false." That would be an ad hominem fallacy. But now suppose that one were to say that eldragonfly's conduct in this thread has been and co contrary. That's not an ad hominem fallacy. In this case, that's just keeping it real.

wrong as usual lemmonjelly. A juvenilistic baiting personal attack is an ad hominem by definition.

Originally posted by kbaumen
I was referring to the fact that you wrote "red herring = fallacy". It's neither true or false, it's an argument that does not address the original issue.

🙄

Originally posted by eldragonfly
What a macaroon! Save your precious breath nemesio, for i have misunderstood nothing my man. i am not even going to read your tired "dumbomatic" rehash of the cards in the hat problem, i find your forced explanation to be worthless, bogus and irritating.

How can you find it worthless if you're not even going to read it. You don't explain the problem with it. It seems that you rather disagree with people than opinions.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
What a macaroon! Save your precious breath nemesio, for i have misunderstood nothing my man. i am not even going to read your tired "dumbomatic" rehash of the cards in the hat problem, i find your forced explanation to be worthless, bogus and irritating.

So I guess you won't accept a truce, huh? And despite my efforts to show you my understanding
of the problem, you won't embody the spirit of quid pro quo and show your understanding?

Nemesio

Originally posted by kbaumen
How can you find it worthless if you're not even going to read it. You don't explain the problem with it. It seems that you rather disagree with people than opinions.

Irrelevant. Ad hominem = fallacy

i must say you're getting rather good at this, this self-effacing flinging around of impotent observations and bogus interpretations of others statements and simple facts. Let's move on..

Originally posted by eldragonfly
i give the correct solution on page 5 of this thread. Many here, yourself included, have made many witless and incoherent assertions in an attempt to pretend that it just isn't there. And it appears that you keep switching from the cards in the hat problem to the boy-girl family hoax/paradox at random, please be consistent.

and i give the correct solution on page 5 of this thread. Many here, yourself included, have made many witless and incoherent assertions in an attempt to pretend that it just isn't there. And it appears that you keep switching from the cards in the hat problem to the boy-girl family hoax/paradox at random, please be consistent.

Originally posted by Nemesio
So I guess you won't accept a truce, huh? And despite my efforts to show you my understanding
of the problem, you won't embody the spirit of quid pro quo and show your understanding?

Nemesio

He put on a pair of tight shoes one day and his brain exploded. It all sounds like the wind to him.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
Irrelevant. Ad hominem = fallacy

i must say you're getting rather good at this, this self-effacing flinging around of impotent observations and bogus interpretations of others statements and simple facts. Let's move on..

Move on to what?

Flinging around? I'm trying to debate with you about this problem. I give you my opinion, explain it and expect an answer. All I get is "Irrelevant", "Ad hominiem" etc. Maybe you're starting to doubt your own opinion if you don't want to explain it.

An impotent observation? Maybe, but I repeat, nobody will take you seriously if you don't reason your claims.

Originally posted by kbaumen
How can you find it worthless if you're not even going to read it. You don't explain the problem with it. It seems that you rather disagree with people than opinions.

Hollow assertions, profane circular reasoning, bogus explanations and a generous helping of "consider the source" all play into this. 😉

Originally posted by eldragonfly
If he held up a sliver card then there are only two choices, hence it is a 50/50 bet that the other side of a card showing a sliver side is silver.

Ah, now I understand your problem. Let's go back to that hat.

I pull out a card and don't show you anything. What's the chance that it's the S/S card?
1/3 of course.

I pull out a card and don't show you anything. However, I pull out the G/G card from the hat and
show you it (both sides). What's the chance that I have the S/S card?
1/2 of course.

Here's where you are getting confused. If I pull out the card and show you only a silver side,
I am giving you two pieces of information. First, it is necessarily not the G/G card. But, since
you cannot know which of the three silver sides I have shown you. So, as I said, it's either
the obverse silver side of the S/S card, the reverse silver side of the S/S card, or the silver
side of the G/S card. So, there is a 2/3 chance that it is the S/S card because of the information
you can get from knowing that one side of the card is silver.

Nemesio

Originally posted by PBE6
He put on a pair of tight shoes one day and his brain exploded. It all sounds like the wind to him.

i pity your tragic ignorance.