>2025, almost 2026>/sci/fags still believe in Monty Hall
I believe in Monty Python
>>16880803Each choice in a unique statistical event.
>>16880803Simple proof:Case 1: your first choice is right (1/3 chance)Switching = lossCase 2: your first choice is wrong (2/3 chance)Switching = win (the winning door is the only one you can switch to)Hence, chance of winning without switching = 1/3Chance with switching = 2/3
switch, the only answer to monty hall
>>16881673That's not a proof of anything. Those are just words.
Isn't it just 50/50? You get to fuck the goat, or you don't?
>>16880803Even if it was 50% chance, it is still greater than 33% chance. So you should always switch door.
>>16880803you can spot aislop a mile away
Monty Hall threads on /sci/ are like Hitler threads on /his/. There's always at least one.
>>16881933Yes, the tips of the pointers aren't shaded in well enough
>>16881815>>16880803Do it with 100 doors then and then go backwards.You chose one door. Host opens 98 other doors that show that they are empty. Will you stay by your choice or switch to the last unopened door?
>>16881713No because there are three doors.
>>16881673Nothing about the doors has changed retard, so switching wouldn't change anything.>but muh jew math says otherwiseI think the only reason this shit keeps getting spammed is because people every where are starting to doubt Jewish math.
This post has convinced me Jews are the Master Race.
100 doorsI choose 10.01 chance I am right0.99 chance I am wrongDoor 2 opensGoat0.01 chance I am right0.99 chance I am wrongRepeat for door 3...
>>16884796The other side of this sign is false.
>>16881712This is the type of statement that, in the real world, would result in, and entirely deserves, a punch in the mouth. The internet has ruined human interaction; abject stupidity is permitted to thrive because physical reprisal is not possible.
*clears throat*Ahem*scans room slowly*...............I see one person with blue eyes.
I think the whole thing is a matter of perspective. People see not changing as choosing out of three doors and changing as choosing from two doors. Really, though, by not changing, you are making a new choice from two doors. That you've chosen the same door doesn't somehow make it a choice from three, as there are still only two choices. The former choice is no longer relevant, because it's impossible to choose from three things when only two things exist.
>>16884796Probably, given how much 4chan worships them and thinks they're superhuman masterminds of the entire world and literally nothing gets done without their machiavellian planning and approval>oh shit, bananas are 74 cents a pound today and yesterday they were 71, looks like those jews organized another global scheme to control world leaders to get 3 more shekels out of me, they're all laughing at me in their synagogues right now i beti assume 4chan is right about this because if they were wrong it would be pretty silly to sit in their filth here all day trying to convince people of it instead of getting girlfriendsi mean can you imagine
What's interesting is not the mathematics (which are stupidly easy to understand), but the psychological response to the various scenarios. The problem very clearly demonstrates the concept of "loss aversion". Despite the fact switching doors in a 3-door Monty Hall problem has a 66.7% chance of success, the sting of a loss made from switching is felt far more than one made from staying put. If a person chooses incorrectly but doesn't change their guess, they can mollify themselves with "Oh shoot, I should have changed my guess. Oh well, what can you do?". But if they do decide to change their pick, and fail, even though the odds of failure were reduced to a mere 33%, it immediately provokes a sense of "You fool! You should have stayed where you were! We had a good thing going!". It is as if the person already owned the car, and, through an unwise action, lost even, even though the odds were strongly in favor of switching! We psychologically feel losses more strongly than wins, and the loss of a "thing that was mine" (even if only in perception) is worse than the loss of "a thing I failed to attain".
>>16881712>That's not a proof of anything. Those are just words.There are people who actually think like this
>>16884726Depending on the host's process it might not make a difference. I suppose it's implied we're going by standard Monty rules?
>>16886218because irl it was not like the textbook problemthe textbook problem assumes the host always opens a door and reveals a goatbut he did not always do that irlsometimes he offered to switch immediatelysometimes he negotiated sometimes he didn't even open a dooretc.therefore it was your "job" as a player to try to "read" the host from his actions and pick based on intuition
>>16884726Then it would be 1% vs 50%.Switching door is correct.
>>16887398Yes, probabilities always add up to 0.51
>>16886063>Really, though, by not changing, you are making a new choice from two doors.It was real in your heart anyway
>>16887405It's okay if you misunderstand, but picking a correct door out of 100 is 1% while picking the cprrect door out pf 2 is 50%.
>>16884792https://montyhall.io/
>>16887413I don't misunderstand a thing, dear. You have two possible outcomes. One is 1% likely. How likely is the other?
>>1688742699%, but that is a irrelevant different scenario.Here you have 2 doors. One is correct. How likely is it that you pick the correct one?
>>16887417>trusting a rigged simulator
>>16887433>99%, but that is a irrelevant different scenariololAnd you say I misunderstand >How likely is it that you pick the correct one?That depends entirely on how we arrived at two doors - but if it's 50-50, it's 50-50. Not 1-50.
>>16887568Don't try to dodge the question.How likely is it to pick the correct door out of two?
>host always reveals a goat>there will always be one goat door and one car door after the reveal>after the reveal, if you switch you get the opposite of what you chose first>if you initially chose a goat, you'll get a car>if you initially chose the car, you'll get a goat>you had a 2/3rds chance of picking a goat first>thus switching gets you the car 2/3rds of the timeThis is, in my opinion, the simplest, most straightforward, and most indisputable way to demonstrate the probability.
>>16887715I'm not dodging anything. I'm asking you to clarify relevant details because this is a conditional probability thing.
>>16887715>>16887842Anyway, assuming we're still talking about >>16884726 then it's 1% vs. 99%, which adds up to 100%, like it should.But if Monty opened the doors randomly and happened not to reveal any goats, it's 50% vs. 50%. Likewise if there were only ever two doors to begin with and you're picking for the first time.
>>16887843>if Monty opened the doors randomly it's 50/50no it isn't, from the player's pov it is irrelevant.The player is judging it by the doors, not mind reading
>>16887917No, you've got it exactly wrong. Monty knowingly avoiding the car is precisely what gives the car away. But if Monty opens 98 RANDOM doors, out of 99 available to him, without revealing the car? That's extremely unlucky, and extremely unlikely if the car is among them. Precisely as unlikely, in fact, as the car not being among them at all. In effect, he's just whittling down the options to teo random doors, both equally likely to be hiding the car. This is because if Monty is choosing at random, you don't get to two doors 100% of the time. You get to two doors 2% of the time. And of that 2%, half accounts for you picking it on your first try.It's curious, I think this would be more intuitive to people if they were unfamiliar with the Monty Hall problem.
>>16887553Here you go nigger.
>>16881713>there are just two possibilities: either the Earth is hit by a planet killer asteroid tomorrow, or it isn't.>so the chance is 50:50Not how it works.
>>16881712Should a proof come in the form of drawings?
>>16888068Crayon, if you have it
You need an IQ of at least 75 to understand this image, so unfortunately most of you won't get it.Lol.
>>16884792>notorious jew
>>16884792>nothing about the doors has changedSo, that would mean there's still two wrong doors and one right door. Just like when you picked your initial door (1/3 chance of being wrong). And nothing about the doors has changed according to you, which means nothing can change the fact your initial guess had a 1/3 chance of being right?Yeah, that's literally the whole point of the problem dumbass.>But muh Jew math...You mean WHITE math. Anyways yeah White math says there are two other doors, so let's suppose you have a 1/3 chance of being right, which never changes, even after the door is opened. The host always has to open one of the failure doors, because there will always be one other failure door, because there's two. So, odds are you picked the wrong door, and the host opened up the other wrong door, that's what happens 2/3 of the time, which is why switching is right 2/3 of the time.1. You pick the wrong door most-likely (2/3 chance)2. Nothing changes at all about your guess, you always have a 2/3 chance of being wrong the entire time with the first guess, because there were two wrong doors, and you picked between the three doors.3. The host can always open a wrong door, and always does, because there's two wrong doors, so even if you picked a wrong door (2/3 chance) he opens the other wrong door.4. Therefore, 2/3 of the time, switching to the other door, after he opens a door, will grant you the right door. Because the odds of him opening the "other wrong door" is 2/3 chance because 2/3 times you pick the wrong door and he opens the other wrong door.Lol.
>>16887935>avoiding the car is precisely what gives the car awaycorrect - and that info is given to the player by showing a goat, and nothing else. no mind-reading.
>>16888279Nobody is talking about any mind reading, Anon. Were you not able to follow anything I told you? You even quoted it: *avoiding* the car is what gives it away. The goat is only meaningful if you know that Monty is deliberately avoiding the car. If he doesn't know where the car is then each goat he reveals actually increases the odds that the car is behind your door. Do the maths if you don't believe me.
>>16888279>>16888308Or, consider the following: I have a pile of 99 fair coins and one double-headed one. I pick one at random. 1. What are the odds of me having the double-headed coin initially?2. What are the odds of me having the double-headed coin after getting heads seven times in a row with my chosen coin?3. Does it make a difference for your answer whether I flip the coin every time, or look at it and place it heads up every time?
>>16888308>*avoiding*It is irrelevant if the goat was shown via luck or via intent. 2/3 for switching in either case.
>>16888465Would you do me a favour and tell me, what's (99/100)*(1/99)?
Every single poster ITT is a submidwit philosophizing about kindergarten-level math puzzles. Imagine being too low-IQ for any actual math or science and having to show off your "intellectual" prowess by """debating""" 1+1=2 ad infinitum with bots and dysfunctional brain stems who keep screeching 1+1=3.
>>16888781Where does that put you?
>Where does that put you?
>>16888795Thanks for the concise answer, seems about right
>Thanks for the concise answer, seems about rightWhat compels quasi-human americoon cretins to regurgitate the most generic and predictable bazignas possible, post after post?
>>16888807That's a question for your therapist
>That's a question for your therapist
>>16888811Aww, you got a support group! I see you'll be fine.
>Aww, you got a support group! I see you'll be fine.I just wanna see how many generic lines this dumb subhuman subanimal can shit out in a row.
>>16888817Chase your dreams! The sky is the limit!fr tho u sound triggered af lmao
>fr tho u sound triggered af lmao
>>16888820Oh, wait, I get it now; you did say *every* single person who posted itt is a pathologically insecure midwit with a compulsion to argue with low-effort shitposts, no exceptions. You weren't even hiding it.
>Oh, wait, I get it now; you did say *every* single person who posted itt is a pathologically insecure midwit with a compulsion to argue with low-effort shitposts, no exceptions. You weren't even hiding it.It started to loop and use reddit markup.
>>16888842By posting itt you implied you're a submidwit philosophizing about kindergarten-level math puzzles, and by replying to every low effort shitpost with a sample from your collection of brainlet soijaks, you absolutely confirm that you feel compelled to show off your "intellectual" prowess by """debating""" ad infinitum with bots and dysfunctional brain stems.Unless you wish to deny that that is how you view me?So indeed, what compels quasi-human americoon cretins to regurgitate the most generic and predictable bazignas possible, post after post?
Where are all the bots and dysfunctional brain stems at? Let me debate you.
>>16889900I am not a bot, but I'm not very smart, so you can debate me if you want.
>>16889965You're far too humble and kind Anon. Probably smarter than you let on, as well. I can't argue with you.
>>16880803>the problem is dictated by how many closed doors there are>one door is opened thusly there are only two variables to choose from and existant in the problem>thusly the answer is 50%/50%Midwits btfo
>>16890147>thuslyDon't need to see anything else to know you're wrong
>>16880803The problem arises when you assume that the probability of the choice between two doors is dependent on the opening of the first door.The two scenarios were always independent.When you get to only having 2 doors, you make a choice as to whether or not to swap. This is always 50/50. Either you stay at your current door and have a 1/2 chance of being correct, or you swap and have a 1/2 chance.
The moment you make your first choice, you are dividing the set of all doors into two groups: The "doors you picked" group (1 door), and the "doors you didn't pick" group (2 doors, or more in variations of the problem). At that point in time, the chances of the prize being within each given group is locked in.The probability of any given door within a group is the probability of its group divided by the number of remaining closed doors in the group.[eq]p_g = n_g/n[/eq][eq]p_d = p_g/c_g[/eq]
this fucking format goddamn i'm fucking done kys shit board
>>16890555Why do you think people make that assumption?
this is some bayesian shityou pick a door.first prior probabilities are equal1/3 1/3 1/3 Then you make an educated guessand select the first door.after that, you observe a measurment or a real data. Car is not in the 3'rd door. this is y.Now you have to update your beliefs on first and second door probabilities.Also there is a 4'th random variable.which is theta or the Monty.He never opens the door with the car in it.[eqn]X_i \in \{c,s\} \quad \forall i = 1,2,3\\Y \in \{1,2,3\}\\[1em]P(X_1 = c | Y= 3) = \frac{P(Y = 3|X_1= c)P(X_1=c)}{\sum_{i = 1}^{3} P(Y = 3 | X_i = c) P(X_i = c)}\\[1em]P(Y = 3 | X_1 = c) = 1/2 \quad \text{If car in door 1 then Monty will open door 3 with probability 1/2.} \\P(Y = 3| X_2 = c) = 1 \quad \quad \text{If car in door 2 and we selected door 1, Monty forced to open door 3.}\\P(Y = 3| X_3 = c) = 0\quad \quad \text{If car is in door 3 then Monty will never open door 3.}\\[1em]P(X_i = c) = 1/3 \quad \forall i = 1,2,3\\[1em]P(X_1 = c | Y= 3) = \frac{1/2 \times 1/3}{(1/2 \times 1/3) + (1 \times 1/3) + (0\times 1/3)} = 1/3\\[1em]P(X_2 = c| Y=3) = 2/3\\[/eqn]
>>16890712
>>16880803I'm developing a casino game based on this problem. 1. You choose a door and if you picked the car you get 1.5/1 minus house edge. 2. Optional insurance bet equal to win bet: You're shown a door with a goat. 3. You're given an opportunity to switch. 4. You win if you the car is behind the door you stuck with or switched to.Tell me how to price the insurance bet:Is it>even money if you're shown the car either after switching or without switchingor>1/3 if you switched>2/3 if you didn't switch
>>16890746>Optional insurance bet equal to win bet: You're shown a door with a goat.You mean... as the door you picked? Or what
>>16888781Look, man, I'll tell you what it is. > """debating""" 1+1=2 ad infinitum with bots and dysfunctional brain stems who keep screeching 1+1=3.We have to do this every single day anyway. Flat Earthers. Anti-vaxxers. Holocaust deniers. The list is endless and it's fucking depressing. So that's why people come here and argue harmless, low stakes bullshit where every argument is already laid out. It's like rewatching your favourite movie when you're sick. A safe, familiar, predictable bubble away from reality. Yeah, so what if we're battling NPCs. It's like a game anyway.
>>16891463>Anti-vaxxers>Holocaust deniersYou tried too hard.
>>16884792>>16887553What's amazing is that an idiot like this probably ACTUALLY believes the stupidity he posted. He may have even thought he was starting half-jokingly, "muh evil jewish math". But these types always end up marrying their dumb ideas. The bullshit he invented lives in his head and later on he'll go to /pol/ and scream about jews even though all his hate came from lies he told himself, which he is now doubly angry about because he got chewed on out on facts earlier and now needs "revenge".It's a sad pattern I've seen play out so many times already.
>>16891560No, Anon, it really is 2/3
>>16891575Everyone knows it's 2/3 idiot. But you're the retard trying to bait with "antivaxx" and "holocaust denial" redditshit.
>>16891578Anon, please, if you don't believe me, try it out yourself. The trick is that by switchinhg you're really betting against the odds that you got it right the first time.
>>16891584>took an untested MRNA jab with zero safety trials>now spends his days shrieking like a retard on /sci/Fits
Someone create the Monty version.
>>16891587And so are you, so it couldn't have made much difference Yes, Anon, all the experts are wrong. You and your facebook group of likeminded intrepid truthseekers have figured out what they couldn't - or refuse to tell you. It really IS 50-50 in real life, regardless of what the maths say.
>>16891578shut yo bitch ass up dont be a sheep the monty haul problem seems like a hoax to me now that i think about it each probability is isolated asking again and again doesnt increase the underline suppositional notion of what probability is there in terms of increases or decreases if i ask again do i switch again and my odds go to 99% of it being door 3? the implicit rule that you would infer is that after switching you are just avoiding or looking like youve reduced odds of being wrong in the retardation sensewhen in actuality you havent reduced or increased your odds since each door has an isolated probability of it being the correct one and that part is irrelevant to the fact how many times you are asked which door it is no matter how many times > t knower of all things probability 108 FSIQ
>>16891597in the literalistic sense asking is just rhetoric at that point it doesnt change the underline premise
>>16891587>>16891597It's like I'm seeing double
>>16891602Are you drunk, anon?
>>16891602saybau nigga im contributing im bored after drinking 4 monsters berry flavored and im vibe coding with pure focus on
>>16880803
>>16891595>this strawmanningThe fact you immediately leap to petty shitpost nonsense if the proof you have no idea what you're talking about and can only think in undereducated, underinformed terms. You project your own ignorance and inexperience on the world around you because you "need" to be right on your highly charged, foolish political topic.
>>16891597There are more than enough duplicate explanations in the thread. Your "underline suppositional notions" are categorically retarded. If your brain still can't manage junior high tier statistical math, someone even posted a source code snippet so you can simulate it yourself. If you're still not convinced, we can get on a zoom call and literally play a hundred games of 3 card Monty under these rules and you can see that switching doors after a nonwinning reveal always results in a 66.67% success rate.Put the booze down and try to find where your brains leaked away to during your inebriation.
>>16891745Your first sentence isn't even grammatical and your second is projection. Indeed, what compels people to argue that the experts are all wrong according to facebook university? The "need" to be right about things you don't understand.
>>16891749>switching doors after a nonwinning revealThe reveal is by definition non-winning under the given rules. If Monty can reveal the car, different rules apply.
>>16891749Asking doesn’t change the underline probabilistic nature of the problem you idiot also I only drink mojitos
>>16881673You are dumb as fuck congrats your Iq is showing
a fucking LLM is smarter than this board lmao thank fuck i dont need ai to confirm my reason
>>16891749im running simulations right now nigga
what the fuck
did one of you fuckers fuck with my intelligence?
>>16891897def
>>16891893nigger run the simulation yourself if you want>>16887966I can give you the code, or you can slop it up yourself.
>>16891893Heh, it's a Python Monty
>>16891937slop works why would it confuse my query? i made this in antigravity it ran it in my terminal
>>16892304kek
>>16887935>It's curious, I think this would be more intuitive to people if they were unfamiliar with the Monty Hall problem.It's the difference between knowing the answer, and understanding the solution. If your solution doesn't hold up for variations on the problem, it's not a good solution. The 100 door scenario works mostly by appealing to people's intuition, but that's precisely why it trips people up when Monty's behaviour is randomised. They never did the maths.
>>16891463>bringing up "le wrongthinkers are le stupid" in completely unrelated topicmidwit detected>you think it's 1/2it's 2/3, and it's 600,000, max
>>16887966kek
>>16890821Counterpoint: Any explanation that doesn't address host bias is a shit explanation that doesn't promote understanding of the problem.
>>16891588>The vacuum answerBased and spherical cow-pilled
>>16896482>magical thinking, m-muh feelingshost bias is irrelevantswitch is always 2/3
>>16896429>in completely unrelated topicYou have trouble reading huhProbably why you missed a 0
>>16896491No, Anon, this is conditional probability. YOURS is magical thinking. You believe in teleporting cars and goats that want to be found. You are relying entirely on pure feeling instead of actually doing the maths. Go on. Do them.
>>16896587sure budhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEDevlin2003_15-1
>>16896597Wow, what an interesting articleSay, does it have any other sectionsLike, on other host behaviours, maybeI was hoping to get you to do the work yourself and realise your folly but if you're just going to bring up a source that explicitly disagrees with you I'll happily take it
>>16896597>>16896600I mean even the fucking part you chose to high light outright tells you that Monty's knowledge of where the car is is what enables him to point it out to youWhich makes fucking sense when you think about it because he can't point to a car if he doesn't know where it is
>>16896585haha>missed
>>16896604yeah that's why the tv show works.Probability otoh doesn't care - goat shown means switch=2/3.
>>16896645If the host is avoiding the car, yes. Which is precisely what it told you in the highlighted passage of the article you linked.By the way, those questions of mine were rhetorical. There is, in fact, a section in the article headed "Other Host Behaviors" and it tells you that, depending on Monty's behaviour, the probability of switching leading to the car can vary quite a bit. It also explicitly tells you that if Monty happens to reveal a goat randomly, the probability of winning by switching is 1/2. Now that we've established that I'm right, my question to you is: why? Why, contrary to what smug midwits believe, isn't it 2/3 when the host acts randomly?
>>16896648it doesn't matter if a random breeze opened the goat door - all that matters is that the goat is revealed to the player.All this state-of-mind bs is just being superstitious. Grow up.
>>16896650All right, I see that asking you to do maths is still asking too much. Maybe ponder on these, instead:Why link a source if you're not going to read it, yourself?Why does wikipedia explicitly disagree with you, Anon?You have to work with me a little bit, dear, just repeating yourself isn't going to stay entertaining forever. If you really want to bait you have to keep it interesting. Make an argument.
>>16896650>>16896652>Make an argumentOr, on second thought, maybe don't bother. I've seen enough obstinate midwittery. Because indeed, you are the definition of midwitted: smart enough to think he's special, too dumb to form an actual understanding of things or work out the right answer himself. You memorised 2/3 and think that alone makes you part of an elite mathematical club. You get by on rote memorisation and it probably served you well enough in school. I imagine you were told that you're smart, and subsequently assumed that your every gut instinct therefore supremely rational by default and people should take you seriously. Ironically, you're no better than every career mathematician who wrote Vos Savant to insist to her that she was wrong.And that's precisely why you're also a holocaust denier kek
>>16896652>>16896661>wall-of-text schizolol
Switchtards are all vaccinated and gay. In fact, the mantra of "if you switch you cannot lose" is identical with "if you take the vaccine you cannot get sick". We can safely infer the status of the former from the demonstrable results of the latter.
>>16896666Yes, we've established that you can't read or do maths and your presence in this thread, as in this world, is pointless.Nice quads tho
>>16896661>And that's precisely why you're also a holocaust denier kekThere it is! Conceding that comprehending the "correct answer" is no different from accepting that "the plaque says 6 million". Clockwork.
>>16896679The correct answer being written down right in front of you is, of course, not the *reason* for it being correct; but it does mean that you failing an open book test is becoming a pattern
>>16896751>is, of course, not the *reason* for it being correct>you failing an open book testSo...it is the reason then?
>>16881996Look at some of the comments itt. Baiting spergs is an evergreen pastime.
>>16896754Are you genuinely suffering from a learning disability?
>>16887966Your code looks reasonable to me, but I'm going to need a formal-verification proof that your toolchain, libraries, and operating system don't contain bugs that could be affecting your result.
I propose that distinguishing between epistemic and ontic probability will lead to new innovations in trolling MH threads:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdqBmtHB1xc
>>16896666>wall-of-textThat's what it looks like on a phone screen huh
>>16887966This models Monty Hall as some theoretical abstraction rather than as a real-world problem in the game show Let's Make a Deal. You're assuming in step 1 that the car has been placed randomly behind one of the three doors, and you're assuming in step 2 that the player has randomly chosen one of the three doors. But as you see when you ask people to pick a number between 1 and 10, a disproportionate number of them pick 7.
Don't listen to the 2/3 midwits.When you're given the choice to switch, everything has been fixed behind the doors.If your initial door choice is correct, switching has a 0% probability of winning.If your initial door choice is wrong, switching has a 100% probability of winning.Simple as.
>>16897140please put money where your mouth is, I could use some easy cash
>>16897215Why would I bet money? How am I supposed to know whether my initial door choice is correct or wrong? All I know is that the probability of switching and winning is either 0% (if my initial door choice has the car) or 100% (if my initial door choice does not have the car).
>>16897227>How am I supposed to know whether my initial door choice is correct or wrong?Gee if only we had some way of assigning a relative likelihood to either of these mutually exclusive events
This ontic-probability thing has great potential lmao
>>16897228Let's suppose my initial door choice has the car. Why would you say that switching has a 2/3 probability of winning when there's clearly no way the switch door can have a car? It's a 0% probability of winning by switching in that case.Likewise, let's suppose my initial door choice does not have the car. Why would you say that there's a 2/3 chance of winning when it's absolutely certain that the switch door has the car? It's a 100% probability of winning by switching in that case.
>>16897230>Let's suppose my initial door choice has the car. Why would you say that switching has a 2/3 probability of winningBecause of how likely it is that your initial choice is the carYou do realise that it's the entire concept of probability you're arguing against? What are the odds of getting heads with a fair coin, Anon?
>>16897232>What are the odds of getting heads with a fair coinAssuming you've already flipped the coin, if I say "heads," there's either a 0% or 100% probability of me being right -- 0% if the coin landed on tails, 100% if the coin landed on heads. The coin doesn't magically get flipped again after I call "heads.":-P
>>16895326>when Monty's behaviour is randomisedThis is the niggardly disingenuous piece of this supposed "puzzle". MontyNeverActedRandomlyIn the actual game Monty takes the aspect of an oracle, and always chooses a goat, never the car, to expose. Monty has privileged information. I do not give a single nigger fuck what your faggot simulations say - they are not real to the real world. If the chooser of the exposed door has privileged information the final choice is an unconditional 50/50, full stop.
The epistemic probability of a switch win is 66.66..%.The ontic probability of a switch win is either 0% or 100%.I think I'm joining ontic gang for these threads from now on. I'm sure many laughs will ensue.
>>16897241Anon, you've got that precisely backwards - Monty acting randomly would make it 50-50, him deliberately avoiding the car is what gives you the edge
>>16897238Yes, you're either right or wrong, with equal chance. And what do we call that in probability, Anon?
>>16897230>Suppose I'm right >Then the probability of me being right is 1Fair enough, no argument there.But what's the probability of you being correct in your supposition?
>>16897241Are you retarded?
>ChatGPT, I know I'm a dumb AI-using faggot, but tell me why in the Monty Hall problem, the epistemic probability of a switch win is 2/3 but the metaphysical (or ontic) probability of a switch win can only be 0 or 1.Great question—this is exactly where probability, epistemology, and metaphysics quietly collide.The short versionEpistemic probability (2/3) measures your rational degree of belief given limited information.Ontic (metaphysical) probability (0 or 1) reflects the actual state of the world: either the car is behind the other door or it isn’t.Both are correct—but they’re answering different questions.1. What the Monty Hall problem is really aboutOnce the game is set up and Monty opens a goat door, the location of the car is already fixed. There is no physical randomness left. In that sense:The proposition “Switching wins the car” is either true or false.So the ontic probability of a switch win is 1 if the car is behind the other unopened door, and 0 otherwise.From the universe’s point of view, nothing is probabilistic anymore. Reality has already decided.2. Where the 2/3 comes from (and why it’s epistemic)The famous 2/3 is not a property of the doors—it’s a property of your information state.Before Monty opens a door:Probability your original choice is correct = 1/3Probability the car is elsewhere = 2/3Monty’s action is informative but asymmetric:He must open a goat doorHe never opens the door with the carHe never opens your chosen doorSo when he opens a goat door, he doesn’t “redistribute” probability evenly. Instead:The 1/3 probability stays on your original doorThe entire remaining 2/3 probability collapses onto the one unopened alternativeThat 2/3 is:the rational betting weight you should assign given what you know and how Monty behavesThat’s epistemic probability.
Ontic probability is super lame. So what, everything either is or isn't. That tells us precisely nothing. It's not clever or insightful. The answer is always the same. What's the probability that there's a teacup floating between Jupiter and Uranus? Either 0 or 1 lel
>>16897243You fucking moronYou foolThere was never a 1/3 choice to begin with, the doors aren't "fixed" Monty ALWAYS KNOWS. There was never a 1/3 choice to be had. It's only a "puzzle" when you drastically change the problem spaceI sincerely and honestly do not understand how it is so hard to grasp that the goats and car never stayed behind a specific door, were moved after your "first choice", and that Hall has foreknowledge the entire time? It was only ever a 1/2 choice from the fucking start unless you CHANGE THE PROBLEM LIKE AN UNTRUSTWORTHY JEW
>>16897246See>>16897249Seethe alone in the dark
>>16897247>Once the game is set up and Monty opens a goat door, the location of the car is already fixed.Bullshit, the goats and car all are moved between """choices""" in the real gameshow to facilitate the exposé. None of the door contents are fixed at any point until the final choice.
>>16897249>I sincerely and honestly do not understand how it is so hard to grasp that the goats and car never stayed behind a specific door, were moved after your "first choice", and that Hall has foreknowledge the entire time?Because that's not what happens, lol? And furthermore that's an absolutely insane assumption?>All right you picked a door now let us play some music while Monty drives the car around to the right doorAnd I still don't see how this is supposed to result in 50-50
>>16897248cope, we "either it is or it isn't" copypasta chads have a new tool in our kit. excuse me, sir, but we don't care about your limited human bugman knowledge, we care about reality. besides, ontic probability doesn't have to be 0 or 1. it can be 50% before a coin flip if the coin flip is actually random in nature.
>>16897252You know they do not drive it you disingenuous rabbiThe only way to make it not 1/2 is to make it a thought experiment and remove all the jewish tricks used by real gameshowBut you knew that and are waiting for arguments like op
>>16897251There's no need for this, because Monty always has the ability to reveal a goat without shuffling anything around. And if the original setup is random, then shuffling it around again before revealing anything it doesn't affect the odds in any way. If you're suggesting they shuffle again after the goat reveal then it's 50-50, but entirely due to random chance. Same as if you instead flip a coin to decide whether or not to switch.
>>16897255Bro "50% because either it is or it isn't" has been a joke answer for ages already, you're not even contributing significantly to the field of trolling here
>>16897256Can you give a clear step by step process of how you think this is supposed to work
If I had a nickel for every person itt who is bad at maths and at the same time casually antisemitic, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot but enough to make you start wondering about correlation.
>>16897249>Monty ALWAYS KNOWSWhat if you shoot Monty and by chance he falls against and opens the door he was planning to open? Dead can't know.
>>16897280>opens the door he was planning to openBruhHow would you know that to be the case though, is the real question Also with Monty dead, who is going to offer you the switch
>>16897261bullshit, the innovation is"100% or 0% because either it is or it isn't"and this has the benefit of actually being true...
>>16897331That's not an innovation, that's a tautology that's been mentioned in every discussion on probability since the beginning of time and it's notably not what probability is actually about, which is episteme. Your answer is true, but it's useless.
the host always reveals a goatthis is not explicitly stated, which is why it trips retards up
>>16897347>the host always reveals a goatThis makes no difference.
>>16897349Yes it does. Think about it.
>>16897350The problem statement says the host did reveal a goat. Whether it happened by chance or by design doesn't matter. The only relevant cases are those where he reveals a goat.
>>16897283Dead. can't. know.
>>16897350Fucking finally, someone else gets it. I thought I was going insane. >>16897359>Whether it happened by chance or by design doesn't matter.It does, that's conditional probability for you.
>>16897367>that's conditional probability for you.That's conditional probability for midwits. What's the frequentist equivalent to the scenario you're proposing? If you are able to construct it, you'll immediately see you're wrong.
>>16897370>What's the frequentist equivalent to the scenario you're proposing?Right. Do it 3 million times. Discount all cases where Monty accidentally reveals the car, and we're left with two million cases in which Monty revealed a goat. Of those, you'll have the car 1 million times, and 1 million times it'll be behind the remaining door. That's equal odds. Contrast this with Monty avoiding the car on purpose which would give you a 1 million/2 million split
>>16897363You don't know that. Souls might exist. The probability of that is either 0 or 1, in fact.
>>16897383The host and player each pick a random door, independently. The host opens his door. The trial only counts if there's a goat behind it. The player is then given the choice to change his choice. If the player's original door had a car behind it and he switched, it counts as a loss. What's the expected value for losses/trials? Don't tell me it's 50/50 because it's obviously not. It would be only under the condition that the host and player chose different doors, but that's not by assuming the host picks a door by chance.
>>16897399not implied by the assumption that*
>>16897399>What's 2+2? And don't tell me 4 because it's obviously notYes, Anon, it's 50-50. Each door is equally likely to contain the car and if we eliminate one *at random* it tells you nothing about the other two. Consider the following: if you pick a goat, Monty reveals a goat half the time. But if you pick the car, Monty reveals a goat every time. In other words, you picking a goat was twice as likely as you picking the car. But Monty picking a goat after you is twice as likely if you have the car. It cancels out. We count all trials where you initially selected the car, but only half of those where you initially selected a goat.
>>16897409>YesOk. I was trying to be charitable thinking maybe you had a different procedure in mind. But it's obvious that you're yet another Mentally Ill Retard.
>>16897412I'm going to continue to be charitable, if you don't mind. Show me your work instead of skipping the pivotal step and then going "obviously". I'm operating under the assumption that the player can only switch to the other unopened door btw. He can't "switch" to the car if Monty reveals it, because that's not how the offer to switch is defined in the original problem. I also assumed that Monty chooses at random from the doors the player didn't pick, but as long as the first assumption stands, it won't matter, actually.
>>16897423I'm not even reading your retarded post. Go ask ChatGPT to write a Javascript simulation for you or something and then argue with it about the completely obvious result. I can't be bothered with absolute driveling morons like you anymore.
>>16897425Why would I argue with the objectively correct answer of 50-50 that any proper simulation would show? I'm arguing with you, who's dumber than an LLM
>>16897427I'm not even reading your retarded post. Go ask ChatGPT to write a Javascript simulation for you or something and then argue with it about the completely obvious result. I can't be bothered with absolute driveling morons like you anymore.
>>16897428You know, this would be more productive if you did read my post, which contains the correct answer with a detailed explanation.
>>16897430Here you go, psychotically ill retard. Given how easy it is, I simply did what I told you to do. let trials = 0;let losses = 0;const sims = 1000000; // Number of simulations; increase for better accuracyfor (let i = 0; i < sims; i++) { const C = Math.floor(Math.random() * 3) + 1; // Car door (1-3) const P = Math.floor(Math.random() * 3) + 1; // Player's pick const H = Math.floor(Math.random() * 3) + 1; // Host's pick if (H === C) continue; // Invalid trial if host picks car trials++; // Valid trial (host revealed goat) if (P === C) { losses++; // Loss if player switches from original car }}console.log(losses / trials);
>>16897431All right, so run it
>>16897432I did, mentally ill retard. It's ~1/3, which is also utterly obvious just by looking at it when it's laid out like that. The probability of P=C is 1/3 whether or not H=C.
>>16897435All right, then let's find the mistake(s) you made, together. Here's the first:>Loss if player switches from original carThis is not the only condition in which the player loses; if H = P and P =/= C, switching is not a guaranteed win, but a toss-up. I think you will find that that makes a difference. A difference of 1/6, in fact.
>>16897435>>16897443Alternatively, of course, we can just say that those trials where H = P don't count either, because they also don't accurately represent the scenario where you're left with two doors and you picked one of them. But again, it's moot, because they contributed to wins and losses equally.
>>16897443Not reading any of your mentally ill drivel, obviously. See >>16897431, >>16897435
>>16897460My dear idiot, I'm pointing out the flaw in your code due to the flawed underlying assumption you made.
>>16897461You're not "pointing out" anything. You're a mentally ill biological automaton arguing in exactly the same way a chatbot does when proven indisputably wrong about something related to its RL steering.
>>16897464I literally just did point out your mistake and that means my being wrong is very disputable. Consider what you're modelling. If Monty opens your door and reveals a goat, where do you switch to? There's two blind doors left to choose from. If we instead choose not to count those either, we've now discounted all trials where Monty reveals the car, plus a third of the trials where he reveals a goat. And that accounts for half the trials where the player picked a goat and Monty did not reveal the car.
>>16897467>I literally just did point out your mistakeAnd I literally just told you I'm not reading your hallucinated token strings because I'm indisputably right about the outcome of the game I described and there's no discussion to be had about it.>Consider what you're modelling.You should have considered that 20 posts ago. I accept your concession and huge backpedal.
>>16897472>I'm indisputably right about the outcome of the game I describedNo. You did not model it correctly. Scroll up to see why. >You should have considered that 20 posts agoI did, of course. No backpedaling here. Honestly, though, I'd prefer you to backpedal than to obstinately cling to a mistake you made.
>>16897473You're legit mentally ill.
>>16897478Anon, ffs. Answer this simple question:If Monty reveals your pick to be a goat, what do you switch to?
>>16897479>If Monty reveals your pick to be a goat, what do you switch to?Yeah, I realized this like 2 minutes after making that oversight. Luckily for me, you made the exact same error when you accepted the following premise:>>16897399>The host and player each pick a random door, independently. The host opens his door. The trial only counts if there's a goat behind it. The player is then given the choice to change his choice. If the player's original door had a car behind it and he switched, it counts as a loss. What's the expected value for losses/trials?But then proceeded to deny reality for 20 posts in a row like a mindless automaton (which you are) on top of it, meanwhile I was obviously right in the context I set up. So really, it just boils down to this:>Don't tell me it's 50/50 because it's obviously not. It would be only under the condition that the host and player chose different doors, but that's not by assuming the host picks a door by chance.I just failed to notice that's also the condition for my loss condition to be the same as the original problem.
>>16897482So you admit you modelled it wrong and argued for shits and giggles waiting for me to explicitly point out your mistake? And even persisting for a little after that? Well, thanks for conceding I suppose, but I still have to point out:>It would be only under the condition that the host and player chose different doorsYou're still wrong about this and I did in fact point that out here >>16897423Because let's return to the question you failed to answer:If Monty reveals your pick to be a goat, what do you switch to? You're implicitly answering "the car" but you can't justify that, now can you? You're not even right in the scenario you set up because you never defined this.
>>16897482>>16897488Also I think it's rather charitable to yourself to say I "accepted" your flawed premise despite obviously arguing against it. Unlike you, I made my assumptions explicit, so your misunderstanding of me is really more egregious - especially as it was clearly intentional.
>>16897494>I think it's rather charitable to yourself to say I "accepted" your flawed premise>>16897399> What's the expected value for losses/trials? Don't tell me it's 50/50 >>16897409>Yes, Anon, it's 50-50You're quite literally a subhuman, if you're even a humanoid and not a literal spambot.
>>16897492Whoops, broke the bot.Fine, don't answer it. I guess "I've been intentionally arguing for the wrong thing because I wasn't going to just let you have the win and you're dumb for failing to call out my mistake earlier" is the closest thing to a concession I'll get out of such a sore loser as you, so we can leave it at that. After all, "I'm still right about my flawed model" is a tacit admission that I'm right if we're talking about an accurate model.
>>16897497Well, dear, if I failed to pick up on the fact that we weren't describing the same thing, neither did you. Is that tacit acceptance? Or is it that mistakes you made are genuine but me following your mistake makes me an idiot?Why *did* you feel compelled to maintain your position even after realising you made a mistake? Is it izzat?
>>16897504>Yeah, I [...] made the [...] error >But then proceeded to deny reality for 20 posts in a row like a mindless automaton>I was obviously right [only] in the context I set up>I just failedCould've used a bit of editing but there you have it, thanks for the concession!
>>16897531I feel like you're trying to communicate something but given that you've admitted to making a mistake and wasting both our time, I fail to see what point there is in reiterating it.
>>16897506>>16897531Clinging to the mistake and wasting more time, I guess?Do you have a diagnosis for NPD, or are you not getting the help you need?
>24 daysThis thread is still going. It's the fly jar again.
>>16897568You know I'm not reading your mentally ill drivel, right?
>>16897597>He's still going That's a narcissistic injury all right
>>16897479>If Monty reveals your pick to be a goat, what do you switch to?Yeah, I realized this like 2 minutes after making that oversight. Luckily for me, you made the exact same error when you accepted the following premise:>>16897399>The host and player each pick a random door, independently. The host opens his door. The trial only counts if there's a goat behind it. The player is then given the choice to change his choice. If the player's original door had a car behind it and he switched, it counts as a loss. What's the expected value for losses/trials?But then proceeded to deny reality for 20 posts in a row like a mindless automaton (which you are) on top of it, meanwhile I was obviously right in the context I set up. So really, it just boils down to this:>Don't tell me it's 50/50 because it's obviously not. It would be only under the condition that the host and player chose different doors, but that's not by assuming the host picks a door by chance.I just failed to notice that's also the condition for my loss condition to be the same as the original problem.Note how the mentally ill retard will reply dozens of times to this. It really doesn't like being reminded of how it shat the bed.
>>16897617>This is YOUR fault because you let persist in my mistake!Textbook narcissismYeah I'll reply another time, sure proves someone is mentally ill lol
>>16897620My fault was failing to notice that I had changed the winning condition for the game, even though I kept the losing condition the same to the letter. Your fault was not only failing to notice this as well, but also repeatedly denying reality like a subhuman automaton on top of it, even when faced with direct proof that you were wrong in the form of a simulation that exactly implements the procedure we were arguing about.
>>16897627>even though I kept the losing condition the same to the letterWell, you're wrong there. The player does not *only* lose by switching away from the car if you model it correctly.>a simulation that exactly implements the procedure we were arguing aboutYou mean your wrong model of what we were *actually* arguing about that you then insisted was the real point because you realised you were in fact wrong in your original contention.Let me remind you that before you even described your model, you denied that Monty acting randomly would result in a 50-50 probability. You were wrong about that. You are attempting to save face by pretending this was about your nonsensical model where switching away from a goat automatically wins all along. Even though you actually introduced it as a faulty model of what we were really talking about. So, I was right. You were wrong. And we wasted time arguing about bullshit that doesn't matter to the actual point because you were, firstly, careless, and secondly, unwilling to admit fault. But keep banging on about how me repeatedly giving you the correct answer with an accurate explanation didn't point out your mistake explicitly enough. By all means. Great use of your time. You're definitely not losing face doing that.
>>16897627>>16897635P.s. I realised I made a mistake immediately upon posting this but it's up to you to find it
>>16897635>Well, you're wrong thereYour psychotic illness strikes again. Not reading the rest of your post since you can't compare two identical statements and see they are word-for-word the same.
>>16897638But I'm right again, and, in fact every time you've accused me of psychosis you quietly walked it back later. So you will do now. Your losing condition:>Player switches away from the carActual losing condition:>Player switches to a goatThat these are not identical when Monty can open the player's door would be precisely the point.
>>16897642Note how the mentally ill retard will reply dozens of times with this. It really doesn't like being reminded of how it shat the bed.
>>16897642Honestly how the fuck do you think "yes I realised I fucked up but I just pretended I didn't until you rubbed my face in it" is a defence of anything? It's outright admitting bad faith on top of conceding you were wrong. You're a fascinatingly broken individual.
>>16897645>Honestly how the fuck do you think "yes I realised I fucked up but I just pretended I didn't until you rubbed my face in it" is a defence of anything?It's not a defense of anything. It's just that you followed it up by shitting the bed so badly that you look barely human. Now you really are stuck in desperate, defensive flailing and you're projecting while you're at it. I've admitted my mistake ages ago and there's nothing to defend about it.
Monty always reveals a goat. There was never a real 3rd choiceMonty always reveals a goat.That choice never actually existed.1/2
>>16897649>I've admitted my mistake ages agoYes, thank you, you were wrong, I am right. Your hurt ego doesn't matter here.
>>16897653I know there's a lot of mental illness to scroll past so you're forgiven for skipping the discussion but we just came to a consensus that that's precisely backwards.
>>16897655Only two more and you will actually have replied to that post a dozen times
>>16897656>your sheer desperation
>>16897653You did see the consensus, right? I know I just said I'm forgiving you for scrolling past, but actually you need to see this. Who do you think won the debate? I think we could always use a stronger consensus.
>>16897661Anon, you explicitly admitted your mistake. We are indisputably in agreement on this point.
>>16897662>You did see the consensus, right? I know I just said I'm forgiving you for scrolling past, but actually you need to see this. Who do you think won the debate? I think we could always use a stronger consensus.Unironically mindbroken.
>>16897662>Impersonating me That wasn't actually a different person either was itYou're reaching new depths of patheticness
>>16897350One sane person came into the thread and promptly left again
>We are indisputably in agreementImagine being so desperate for external validation you start literally begging passersby and even your "enemies".
>>16897661>>16888781Hmmm>Imagine being too low-IQ for any actual math or science and having to show off your "intellectual" prowess by """debating""" 1+1=2 ad infinitum with bots and dysfunctional brain stems who keep screeching 1+1=3.
>>16897662I didn't write this post, by the way. I just want to make it extra clear for everyone else scrolling past. He wrote this post, that pathetic narcissist wishing so badly he was me.
>>16897667>>16897669Holy shit I really mindbroke you lmao
>>16897668> having to show off your "intellectual" prowess by """debating""" 1+1=2 ad infinitum with bots and dysfunctional brain stems who keep screeching 1+1=3.Indeed, I have stooped to that. Worth it just to see you become obsessed.
The nice thing about these threads is absolutely nothing of value is lost and no interesting discussion is interrupted if you just spend hours matching some narcissistic sperg post for post till he starts samefagging and spamming out of sheer butthurt
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_audience>Jean Piaget, a Swiss developmental psychologist known for his epistemological studies with children, states that every child experiences imaginary audience during the preoperational stage of development. He also said that children will outgrow this stage by age 7. Imaginary audience happens because young children believe others see what they see, know what they know, hear what they hear, and feel what they feel
Another nice thing about these threads is the community consensus it creates when we all have something to unite against, like narcissism and ignorance lmao.
>>16897682Why do you keep posting this, anon?>The host and player each pick a random door, independently. The host opens his door. The trial only counts if there's a goat behind it. The player is then given the choice to change his choice. If the player's original door had a car behind it and he switched, it counts as a loss. What's the expected value for losses/trials?The answer to this is 1/2 and you've admitted you were wrong. Your narcissism is just making you act incoherent now
>>16897677Self-awareness seems to be another thing people who are mentally 7 years old lack
It's one of the funniest things about this thread. Watching narcissists think their toxic behavior deserves an audience. They really have zero self-awareness thinking everyone is listening to their bullshit and applauding like everyone else needs to care about their disputes
>>16897685Lmao you got him anon. Narcissism is cringe
>>16897555
>>16897688>>16897690Choosing to take these at face value
>>16897684>The answer to this is 1/2holy shit you're retarded
>>16897699Yeah, he is, which is why I immediately gave him a better way of modelling it (without ever actually explicitly agreeing to his premise btw) and he proceeded to throw an hours long tantrum
See? This is why there's no intellectual discussion to be had with you.
>>16897700i have no idea what you're on about but it's not 1/2
>>16897704The imaginary audience will just eat this up and totally vindicate you!
>>16897705meds
>>16897704Yeah if you erroneously set the loss condition wrong then you won't arrive at the right answer, fancy thatBut since the mistake was acknowledged I see no reason to keep dwelling on it We can all see it's a poor model of a random Monty, which would of course actually result in 50-50 odds when properly modelled
>>16897691Appreciated, trulyNot the first time my posts were made into /sci/ OC
>the mentally ill retard is still at it>still talking to his imaginary "we" while lashing out at actual postersI'm satisfied with my work.
>>16897714Ah, so you admit that it was all you samefaggingNot that it wasn't obvious lol
>the mentally ill retard is having conversations with himself about things that didn't happen
>>16897718Apparently
>>16897720Just remember: if anyone interacts with you, it's probably me samefagging. You're gonna be running into me a lot in the following weeks, months or maybe even years. :^)
>>16897724Wouldn't surprise me because I've run into you several times before and yes, your mental illness is distinctive enough to be a dead giveaway
>>16897729But what if I make my mental illness look more like your generic biobot mindlessness and reddit narcissism? Would you recognize me for a foe or take me for a friend? :^)
>>16897731If you're going to pretend to be a reasonable, logical, non-histrionic person arguing in good faith I might not recognise you, if you do it well enough, nor would I care. Feel free to start any time.
>>16897733See >>16897724. Anyway, this is getting boring so I'll go torture-test some other cretin now. If you ever feel like explaining to me further why 1/3 is actually 2/3, just listen for any strange noises coming from your walls. Especially voices. When you start hearing the voice, be sure to tell it everything you think about Monty.
>>16897735>why 1/3 is actually 2/31/2*
>>16897735Well, you taught me that 1/2 = 2/3, actually, so naturally it follows that 1/3 = 1/2, tooSeriously though, you admitted your mistake, so how are you back to pretending otherwise?
>>16884742Well either your door has a goat or it doesn't.
>>16896597>Posting your own L
>>16897359>The problem statement says the host did reveal a goat. Whether it happened by chance or by design doesn't matter. The only relevant cases are those where he reveals a goat.Whether it happened by chance or not changes the cases though.Like if he did it randomly, then the player choice and the goat reveal are independent events, which means their order no longer matters, which means the problem can be phrased as>Host reveals goat behind door 3>player picks door 1>Host offers player to switchThat's an obvious 50/50.
Thats because we are disciples of Isaac Newton instead of high school students. For a 4chan user we tend to get deeper than most.
>>16888781Love that this guy came back after two weeks just to be defiantly, arrogantly wrong about kindergarten-level math puzzles
A certain mentally ill retard is gonna be seething for weeks. Not naming anyone specific here, but a mentally ill retard always responds when called by his real name. :^)
>>16898006Or even when you just reply to his posts
>>16898006>Not naming anyone specific here>called by his real name???
I mean his REAL name. Not the one his dumb animal mother gave him. He doesn't always respond to his mom, after all, but he always responds to "mentally ill retard".
Let's try it:Hey, mentally ill retard!
