Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Winston Churchill Fantasies

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Ted Frank

unread,
Nov 16, 1993, 11:48:11 AM11/16/93
to
In article <CGBw...@vaccine.worlds.com> war...@nysernet.org writes:
>In <CG4Ky...@freenet.carleton.ca> ab...@Freenet.carleton.ca (Robert Allison) writes:
>>Illegitimi non carborundum - don't let the bastards grind you down.
>
>Anyone know any good Churchill stories?

There was the time Churchill was on Monty Hall's "Let's Make A Deal."
He had picked one of the three doors, and Monty opened one of the
other two to reveal a goat. Monty gave Churchill the opportunity
to switch doors, but Churchill remained resolute, refusing despite
plaintive pleas from Monty. Sure enough, when Churchill opened the
door, it was a new car, a Chevrolet Nova. (I guess he had a fifty-
fifty chance.)

The funny thing is when Churchill drove the car into Mexico. All of
the locals made fun of it there ("Nova" means "exploding star" in
Spanish), and he went back to England in a huff. Rolls Royce made a
very big deal of this at the time, how Churchill choice a Chrysler
Huff over a Chevrolet Nova, when Britain was making cars that were
guaranteed to never break down. The resulting scandal resulted in
both the Quiz Show Hearings in Congress and the downfall of the Whig
party in Britain. Just goes to show: a country without a constitution
is like a three-sided record.

I understand it was Churchill who proposed the rule that 2000 shouldn't
be a leap year as it was the 6000th anniversary of the Earth. Or was
it Gladstone?
--
ted frank | "I'm always right and everybody else is always
th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu | wrong! What's to argue about?"
the u of c law school |
standard disclaimers | -- Calvin

Bernd Paysan

unread,
Nov 16, 1993, 12:15:30 PM11/16/93
to

In article <1993Nov16.1...@midway.uchicago.edu>, th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>There was the time Churchill was on Monty Hall's "Let's Make A Deal."
>He had picked one of the three doors, and Monty opened one of the
>other two to reveal a goat. Monty gave Churchill the opportunity
>to switch doors, but Churchill remained resolute, refusing despite
>plaintive pleas from Monty. Sure enough, when Churchill opened the
>door, it was a new car, a Chevrolet Nova. (I guess he had a fifty-
>fifty chance.)

Oh no! Don't you read Scientific American? He had a one third chance!
This is his initial chance, because he remained resolute - he doesn't
get a better chance by remaining resolute.
--
Bernd Paysan
"Late answers are wrong answers!"

Dave Ripton

unread,
Nov 16, 1993, 1:35:36 PM11/16/93
to
>There was the time Churchill was on Monty Hall's "Let's Make A Deal."
>He had picked one of the three doors, and Monty opened one of the
>other two to reveal a goat. Monty gave Churchill the opportunity
>to switch doors, but Churchill remained resolute, refusing despite
>plaintive pleas from Monty. Sure enough, when Churchill opened the
>door, it was a new car, a Chevrolet Nova. (I guess he had a fifty-
>fifty chance.)

>The funny thing is when Churchill drove the car into Mexico. All of
>the locals made fun of it there ("Nova" means "exploding star" in
>Spanish), and he went back to England in a huff. Rolls Royce made a
>very big deal of this at the time, how Churchill choice a Chrysler
>Huff over a Chevrolet Nova, when Britain was making cars that were
>guaranteed to never break down. The resulting scandal resulted in
>both the Quiz Show Hearings in Congress and the downfall of the Whig
>party in Britain. Just goes to show: a country without a constitution
>is like a three-sided record.

>I understand it was Churchill who proposed the rule that 2000 shouldn't
>be a leap year as it was the 6000th anniversary of the Earth. Or was
>it Gladstone?

Nice meta-mega-troll, but it's just TOO obvious. I mean, I'll bet
there aren't more than two or three newbies silly enough to be
rolled up in this ball of wax. But somebody will be there to
supply a wick, when they are... (Diane?)

Wait a minute, somebody said that Prodigy was getting a full Net
feed? I have a hard time believing this, 'cause they'd have a
hard time squeezing an ad onto every screen, and something
dirty might be uttered. But if it's true, I take it all back.
(I have a funny feeling that "Full Internet Access" means "email,"
though. Those marketing types are so silly.)

ObUL: Fb. You can get spiffy sports info on Prodigy.
ObUL: Fb. You can meet audiophile babes through Compuserve.
ObUL: T. TV commercials lie a lot.

Dave "bored" Ripton

Daniel B Case

unread,
Nov 16, 1993, 2:25:00 PM11/16/93
to
In article <keyesea-16...@129.59.18.63>, key...@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Edward Keyes) writes...

>> The funny thing is when Churchill drove the car into Mexico. All of
>> the locals made fun of it there ("Nova" means "exploding star" in
>> Spanish), and he went back to England in a huff. Rolls Royce made a
>> very big deal of this at the time, how Churchill choice a Chrysler
>> Huff over a Chevrolet Nova, when Britain was making cars that were
>> guaranteed to never break down. The resulting scandal resulted in
>> both the Quiz Show Hearings in Congress and the downfall of the Whig
>> party in Britain. Just goes to show: a country without a constitution
>> is like a three-sided record.
>
>Actually, "nova" refers to an exploding star in English. I believe
>in Spanish, it means "does not go", explaining why the locals were
>making fun of the car.
>
>-------- Edward Keyes (key...@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu) --------
>-- "This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel says: --
>-- 'Drink, get drunk and vomit, and fall to rise no more.'" --
>---------------------------------- Jeremiah 25:27 ------------

I knew you'd get at least one, Ted, but I'm not sure if it counts due to the
wide crossposts.

Dan "Temporary self-appointed AFU inspector" Case

Daniel Case State University of New York at Buffalo
Prodigy: WDNS15D | GEnie: DCASE.10
Ceci n'est pas une pipe
V140...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu dc...@acsu.buffalo.edu

Peter Jones

unread,
Nov 16, 1993, 2:47:42 PM11/16/93
to
pay...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Bernd Paysan) writes:

That is true. When he first picked the door, he had a 1/3 chance.
However, once Monty had opened the door, leaving only two left, and
Churchill was given another chance, Churchill then had a 1/2 chance of
getting it right.

--
Peter C. Jones pet...@camelot.bradley.edu
If a cluttered sig means a cluttered mind, what does an empty sig mean?

Xiphias Gladius

unread,
Nov 16, 1993, 1:30:58 PM11/16/93
to
th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>There was the time Churchill was on Monty Hall's "Let's Make A Deal."
>He had picked one of the three doors, and Monty opened one of the
>other two to reveal a goat. Monty gave Churchill the opportunity
>to switch doors, but Churchill remained resolute, refusing despite
>plaintive pleas from Monty. Sure enough, when Churchill opened the
>door, it was a new car, a Chevrolet Nova. (I guess he had a fifty-
>fifty chance.)

Nope -- he had a 1/3 chance! The Monty Hall Problem is a bizzare math
phenominon.

It works as follows:

SITUATION: There are initially three doors, A, B, and C. Exactly one
of the doors is a winner, two are loosers. Subject picks a door at
random. Without the door being opened, Monty opens a loosing door
that Subject has not picked (there is always at least one loosing door
that the subject has not picked). Monty then gives the person the
chance to switch doors.

Think of it this way -- say that the person decides BEFORE he plays
whether he will switch or stay.

If he decides to stay, he has a 1/3 chance of winning. If he
initially picks the door that wins, then he wins.

If he decides to switch, he has a 2/3 chance of winning. If he
initially picks one of the two loosing doors, then Monty will show him
the other loosing door, then he will switch to the winning door.

POSSIBILITIES FOR "STAY" STRATEGY:

Doors denoted by W for winning door, L1, L2 for loosing doors

Pick W, showed L1 or L2 (doesn't matter), stay; WIN
Pick L1, showed L2 , stay; LOOSE
Pick L2, showed L1 , stay; LOOSE

"SWITCH" Strategy

Pick W, showed L1 or L2, switch; LOOSE
Pick L1, showed L2 , switch; WIN
Pick L2, showed L1 , switch; WIN

- Ian

Lee Rudolph

unread,
Nov 16, 1993, 4:00:34 PM11/16/93
to
th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>In article <CGBw...@vaccine.worlds.com> war...@nysernet.org writes:
>>In <CG4Ky...@freenet.carleton.ca> ab...@Freenet.carleton.ca (Robert Allison) writes:
>>>Illegitimi non carborundum - don't let the bastards grind you down.
>>
>>Anyone know any good Churchill stories?

[Ted's best WC tales deleted]

Most of the cross-posts are obvious, but I admit it took me a while to
figure out alt.sex.bondage--that is, until I saw how subtly you were
alluding to "Winnie"'s well-known proclivity for caning toadies. Jolly good!

Lee "and licking them" Rudolph

Lee Rudolph

unread,
Nov 16, 1993, 4:32:46 PM11/16/93
to
key...@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Edward Keyes) writes:

>Actually, "nova" refers to an exploding star in English.

Well, naturally. Why else do you think Ted Frank cross-posted this to
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh? Haven't you been following the "Royal Flatulence
Syndrome" thread?

Lee "in the words of Elizabeth I, `we had forgotten the fart'" Rudolph

John Smolin

unread,
Nov 16, 1993, 4:25:06 PM11/16/93
to
In article <petercj.753479093@camelot>, pet...@camelot.bradley.edu (Peter Jones) writes:
|> pay...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Bernd Paysan) writes:
|>
|>
|> >In article <1993Nov16.1...@midway.uchicago.edu>, th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
|> >>There was the time Churchill was on Monty Hall's "Let's Make A Deal."
|> >>He had picked one of the three doors, and Monty opened one of the
|> >>other two to reveal a goat. Monty gave Churchill the opportunity
|> >>to switch doors, but Churchill remained resolute, refusing despite
|> >>plaintive pleas from Monty. Sure enough, when Churchill opened the
|> >>door, it was a new car, a Chevrolet Nova. (I guess he had a fifty-
|> >>fifty chance.)
|>
|> >Oh no! Don't you read Scientific American? He had a one third chance!
|> >This is his initial chance, because he remained resolute - he doesn't
|> >get a better chance by remaining resolute.
|>

A poll: How many of you think this post was adding to
the bait? How many think it was falling for it?


|> That is true. When he first picked the door, he had a 1/3 chance.
|> However, once Monty had opened the door, leaving only two left, and
|> Churchill was given another chance, Churchill then had a 1/2 chance of
|> getting it right.
|>


I can't believe this. (who am I kidding? Of course I can.)


Sigh


John Smolin (email to smo...@vesta.physics.ucla.edu no matter what the
header says)
....I thought it was Exxon that mean exploding star in spanish......


Xiphias Gladius

unread,
Nov 16, 1993, 4:01:25 PM11/16/93
to
v140...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:

>I knew you'd get at least one, Ted, but I'm not sure if it counts due to the
>wide crossposts.

It was horrible. I realized I'd been trolled about thirty seconds
after I replied. See, I just yesterday got into a argument with my
father about the Monty Hall problem, and so I knee-jerked.

And I remember thinking, "Damn, I woulda thunk Ted Frank woulda known
better, but, hell, he's a law student, so I suppose he could be
clueless about math . . ."

Mea culpa.

- Ian

pencil dragon

unread,
Nov 16, 1993, 5:31:30 PM11/16/93
to
Pencildragon here,

Spanish speaking people make fun of Chevy Novas because "No va."
means doesn't go. Who in theirright mind would buy a "Doesn't go"
automobile. A lot of marketing guys at GM were clueless why the Nova
didn't sell in Latin America.

HUGS

--
from pencildragon at
Darkstar Graphics
P.O.Box 369
Weymouth,MA 02188

pencil dragon

unread,
Nov 16, 1993, 5:39:33 PM11/16/93
to
Pencildragon here,

In answer to Lee Rudolph's query, why is this thead on asb?

It is well documented that Churchill was brutally beaten by one of
his schoolmasters. That's the only clue I have.

Don Fearn

unread,
Nov 16, 1993, 5:02:25 PM11/16/93
to

--

In article <frega-161...@frega.ils.nwu.edu>, fr...@ils.nwu.edu
(Don Frega) finds the bait irresistable and responds:

|> Actually, it means, quite literally, "no go". This was a big marketing
|> gaffe when Chevrolet introduced the Nova to Mexico. Along similar lines,
|> when Coca-Cola translated "Coke brings you back to life" into Japanese, it
|> came out "Coke brings your ancestors back from the dead", quite an insult
|> in Japanese culture.
|>
|> Then there was the time the Japanese mall tried decorating for Christmas
|> and ended up crucifying Santa Claus.
|>
|> But you knew this all already.
|>
|> --Don


Yep, it looks like the trolling worked.

But hey! Who're you with the hook in your mouth? Your name looks
familiar, but the letter order's wrong and there's a "g" instead of
an "n".

How'd that happen??

Interesting.

Don (my favorite car name is "Matador",
which means "killer" in Spanish) Fearn

Jared Dahl

unread,
Nov 16, 1993, 5:04:32 PM11/16/93
to
|> In article <CGBw...@vaccine.worlds.com> war...@nysernet.org writes:
|> >In <CG4Ky...@freenet.carleton.ca> ab...@Freenet.carleton.ca (Robert Allison) writes:
|> >>Illegitimi non carborundum - don't let the bastards grind you down.
|> >
|> >Anyone know any good Churchill stories?
|>
|> There was the time Churchill was on Monty Hall's "Let's Make A Deal."
|> He had picked one of the three doors, and Monty opened one of the
|> other two to reveal a goat. Monty gave Churchill the opportunity
|> to switch doors, but Churchill remained resolute, refusing despite
|> plaintive pleas from Monty. Sure enough, when Churchill opened the
|> door, it was a new car, a Chevrolet Nova. (I guess he had a fifty-
|> fifty chance.)

At which point did he puke on Monty's shoes and tell
him that in the morning he(Churchill) would be sober,
but Monty would still be the host of a sub-standard
game show?

Did rec.arts.startrek.misc finally admit that James T. Kirk's
middle name was Terry, or did you decide to cast your line in
more crowded waters?

OBLimbaugh: Limbaugh was thin until he consumed Pop-Rocks(tm) and
Coke(tm) which bloated him to his present size.

Jared Dahl
Opinions are mine, not my employers

GCS d--@ c++(++++) l++ u++ e-(*) m--- s+/+
n-(---)@ h--- f+ g+ w+@ t++(---) r(-) y+

Edward Hartnett

unread,
Nov 16, 1993, 7:49:21 PM11/16/93
to

th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

It works as follows:

No, I'm sorry, I think you're wrong. When he makes his first pick he
has a one in three chance of getting the car. After the goat was
revealed, he was offered a fresh choice, of which he had a 1 in two
chance. So it really was fifty-fifty for the second choice.

--
Edward Hartnett e...@larry.gsfc.nasa.gov
(301) 286-2396 fax: (301) 286-1754

Xiphias Gladius

unread,
Nov 16, 1993, 10:48:42 PM11/16/93
to
e...@larry.gsfc.nasa.gov (Edward Hartnett) writes:

No, I am right. How do I know? Several ways:

1. My friend Leopold the Math Grad Student says I'm right.
2. My Discrete Math book says I'm right.
3. My own argument convinced me.
4. I just did an experiment with the results as follows:

24 tries on Switch strategy, 24 on Stay

SWITCH

WINS LOSSES
Experimental 15 9
Projected:
My theory 16 8
Your theory 12 12

chi^2 on my theory: 0.1875 --> 50% to 80% likely (closer to 80%)
chi^2 on yours: 1.5 --> 20% to 50% likely (closer to 20%)

STAY

WINS LOSSES
Experimental 6 18
Projected
My theory 8 16
Your theory 12 12

chi^2, mine: 0.75 --> 20% to 50% likely (About halfway)
chi^2, yours: 6 --> 01% to 05% likely

Okay, my data was pretty bad, and didn't do a GREAT job of proving my
theory, but it did a pretty good job of disproving yours. Someone
wanna write a program to simulate it, so we can get a couple thousand
tries?

- Ian

Homi!

unread,
Nov 17, 1993, 12:38:15 AM11/17/93
to
In article <1993Nov16.1...@midway.uchicago.edu>,

Ted Frank <th...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>In article <CGBw...@vaccine.worlds.com> war...@nysernet.org writes:
>>In <CG4Ky...@freenet.carleton.ca> ab...@Freenet.carleton.ca (Robert Allison) writes:
>>>Illegitimi non carborundum - don't let the bastards grind you down.
>>
>>Anyone know any good Churchill stories?
>
>There was the time Churchill was on Monty Hall's "Let's Make A Deal."
>He had picked one of the three doors, and Monty opened one of the
>other two to reveal a goat. Monty gave Churchill the opportunity
>to switch doors, but Churchill remained resolute, refusing despite
>plaintive pleas from Monty. Sure enough, when Churchill opened the
>door, it was a new car, a Chevrolet Nova. (I guess he had a fifty-
>fifty chance.)
>
>The funny thing is when Churchill drove the car into Mexico. All of
>the locals made fun of it there ("Nova" means "exploding star" in

Err, that means "no go" as it "it wont go"

Not a good name for a car in spanish speaking countries.


>Spanish), and he went back to England in a huff. Rolls Royce made a
>very big deal of this at the time, how Churchill choice a Chrysler
>Huff over a Chevrolet Nova, when Britain was making cars that were
>guaranteed to never break down. The resulting scandal resulted in
>both the Quiz Show Hearings in Congress and the downfall of the Whig
>party in Britain. Just goes to show: a country without a constitution
>is like a three-sided record.
>
>I understand it was Churchill who proposed the rule that 2000 shouldn't
>be a leap year as it was the 6000th anniversary of the Earth. Or was
>it Gladstone?
>--
>ted frank | "I'm always right and everybody else is always
>th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu | wrong! What's to argue about?"
>the u of c law school |
>standard disclaimers | -- Calvin


--
100%DAV ho...@panix.com
"The guy blows $5 billion on a Seawolf submarine and can't spend a few d
dollars to fly in protection." -- An unnamed Lt. Col. on Aspin's Somalia
decisions, as quoted by NEWSWEEK's David Hackworth, 10/18 issue.

Edward Hartnett

unread,
Nov 17, 1993, 6:53:52 AM11/17/93
to
In article <ian.75...@cs.brandeis.edu> i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) writes:


e...@larry.gsfc.nasa.gov (Edward Hartnett) writes:

>In article <ian.75...@cs.brandeis.edu> i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) writes:

> If he decides to switch, he has a 2/3 chance of winning. If he
> initially picks one of the two loosing doors, then Monty will show him
> the other loosing door, then he will switch to the winning door.

>No, I'm sorry, I think you're wrong. When he makes his first pick he
>has a one in three chance of getting the car. After the goat was
>revealed, he was offered a fresh choice, of which he had a 1 in two
>chance. So it really was fifty-fifty for the second choice.

No, I am right. How do I know? Several ways:

1. My friend Leopold the Math Grad Student says I'm right.
2. My Discrete Math book says I'm right.
3. My own argument convinced me.
4. I just did an experiment with the results as follows:

24 tries on Switch strategy, 24 on Stay

No, you are wrong because you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I
am not talking about his overall odds based on switching or staying
with his choice. I'm saying that for his second choice he is offered
two doors, one with a prize. Therefor he has a 1 in two chance of
selecting the right door on that choice.

Markus Stumptner

unread,
Nov 17, 1993, 7:41:37 AM11/17/93
to
In article <keyesea-16...@129.59.18.63>, key...@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Edward Keyes) writes...
>> The funny thing is when Churchill drove the car into Mexico. All of
>> the locals made fun of it there ("Nova" means "exploding star" in
>> Spanish), and he went back to England in a huff.

>Actually, "nova" refers to an exploding star in English. I believe


>in Spanish, it means "does not go", explaining why the locals were
>making fun of the car.

Actually, "nova" (as opposed to "no va") refers to an exploding star in
pretty much any western language, and probably some others too. It's simply
a technical term imported from Latin, meaning "new".

---
Markus Stumptner m...@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna vexpert!m...@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria ...mcsun!vexpert!mst

David DeLaney

unread,
Nov 16, 1993, 5:16:58 PM11/16/93
to
In article <2cb6ho$f...@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com> rip...@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) writes:
>[meta-mega-troll deleted]

>Wait a minute, somebody said that Prodigy was getting a full Net feed?

me. I believed it at the time.

>I have a hard time believing this, 'cause they'd have a
>hard time squeezing an ad onto every screen, and something
>dirty might be uttered. But if it's true, I take it all back.
>(I have a funny feeling that "Full Internet Access" means "email,"
>though. Those marketing types are so silly.)

I've been informed that it does mean this (silly me, trusting what I had read
in two newspapers!). Also, they'll only get it if they first pay for a package
to let them receive it, which should weed out a good deal of random newbieness.
(But watch out for those email-to-the-net servers!)

>ObUL: Fb. You can get spiffy sports info on Prodigy.
>ObUL: Fb. You can meet audiophile babes through Compuserve.
>ObUL: T. TV commercials lie a lot.
>Dave "bored" Ripton

Apologies for not marking my long boring food-chain-taxonomy "long and boring";
I'll know better in the future (MOTTO!).

ObUL: Rush Limbaugh has recently revealed that his girlfriend is the exec at
Simon and Schuster who was responsible for his best-sellers (Janice Regan);
this is obscurely comforting, somehow.

Dave "will not listen to RL for food" DeLaney
--
David DeLaney: dbd@(utkux.utcc | panacea.phys | enigma.phys).utk.edu - collect
them all! Disclaimers: AFAIK, *nobody* speaks for U.T.Knoxville (consistently);
Thinking about this disclaimer (or about high energy theoretical particle __
physics) may cause headaches. sorry, no borders or boundaries \/

Ralph 'Hairy' Moonen

unread,
Nov 17, 1993, 7:50:16 AM11/17/93
to
In article <EJH.93No...@larry.gsfc.nasa.gov>, e...@larry.gsfc.nasa.gov (Edward Hartnett) writes:
> In article <ian.75...@cs.brandeis.edu> i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) writes:
> e...@larry.gsfc.nasa.gov (Edward Hartnett) writes:
> >In article <ian.75...@cs.brandeis.edu> i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) writes:
> > If he decides to switch, he has a 2/3 chance of winning. If he
> > initially picks one of the two loosing doors, then Monty will show him
> > the other loosing door, then he will switch to the winning door.
> >No, I'm sorry, I think you're wrong. When he makes his first pick he
> >has a one in three chance of getting the car. After the goat was
> >revealed, he was offered a fresh choice, of which he had a 1 in two
> >chance. So it really was fifty-fifty for the second choice.
> No, I am right. How do I know? Several ways:
>
> 1. My friend Leopold the Math Grad Student says I'm right.
> 2. My Discrete Math book says I'm right.
> 3. My own argument convinced me.
> 4. I just did an experiment with the results as follows:
>
> 24 tries on Switch strategy, 24 on Stay
>
> No, you are wrong because you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I
> am not talking about his overall odds based on switching or staying
> with his choice. I'm saying that for his second choice he is offered
> two doors, one with a prize. Therefor he has a 1 in two chance of
> selecting the right door on that choice.

No, you are both right. There are two interpretations of the puzzle:
1) Monty does not know which door contains the car, and therefore
randomly opens a door to reveal a goat -> chance = 0.5 when you switch

2) Monty knows bloody well where the car is, and purposefully opens the
door with only a goat -> switching yields 0.666 chance for the car/cash.

If you don't agree, and want your mailbox flooded with hate-mail and flames,
I propose you post this one on rec.puzzles.

--Ralph 'Already donned his flame-proof suit' Moonen

David DeLaney

unread,
Nov 16, 1993, 6:38:52 PM11/16/93
to
In article <CGLw9...@world.std.com> pdr...@world.std.com (pencil dragon)
writes:

>Pencildragon here,
>In answer to Lee Rudolph's query, why is this thead on asb?
>It is well documented that Churchill was brutally beaten by one of
>his schoolmasters. That's the only clue I have.

ObBait: Didn't Pink Floyd write a song commemorating this?

Dave "dark side of the UseNet" DeLaney

clarkcr

unread,
Nov 17, 1993, 9:06:34 AM11/17/93
to
Ted Frank (th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: the locals made fun of it there ("Nova" means "exploding star" in
: Spanish)

Actually, they probably made fun of it because "no va" means "doesn't go"
in Spanish. Kind of the opposite of the way "Yugo" sounds in English.
Is the car so bad you have to assure the customer in the name "you go"?

Cat Clark
Chocolate and fur go well together, honest.
I'll trade a tenderloin for a wookii.

DaveHatunen

unread,
Nov 17, 1993, 10:50:45 AM11/17/93
to
>th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) wrote:
>
>
>> The funny thing is when Churchill drove the car into Mexico. All of
>> the locals made fun of it there ("Nova" means "exploding star" in
>> Spanish),
>
>Actually, it means, quite literally, "no go". This was a big marketing
>gaffe when Chevrolet introduced the Nova to Mexico. Along similar lines,
>when Coca-Cola translated "Coke brings you back to life" into Japanese, it
>came out "Coke brings your ancestors back from the dead", quite an insult
>in Japanese culture.
>
>Then there was the time the Japanese mall tried decorating for Christmas
>and ended up crucifying Santa Claus.
>
>But you knew this all already.

No, no. Really. Please do go on. This is fascinating!

Dave "A day without a new factoid is like a day without wine" Hatunen


--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California: *
* where San Francisco meets The Peninsula *
* and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea *
*******************************************************

Jared Dahl

unread,
Nov 17, 1993, 12:16:20 PM11/17/93
to
In article <1993Nov16.2...@martha.utcc.utk.edu>, d...@martha.utcc.utk.edu (David DeLaney) writes:
|> In article <CGLw9...@world.std.com> pdr...@world.std.com (pencil dragon)
|> writes:
|> >Pencildragon here,
|> >In answer to Lee Rudolph's query, why is this thead on asb?
|> >It is well documented that Churchill was brutally beaten by one of
|> >his schoolmasters. That's the only clue I have.
|>
|> ObBait: Didn't Pink Floyd write a song commemorating this?

ObHook: Wasn't that on their three sided album?

david zevcalvert hines

unread,
Nov 17, 1993, 2:24:29 PM11/17/93
to
In article <hatunenC...@netcom.com> hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:
>In article <frega-161...@frega.ils.nwu.edu> fr...@ils.nwu.edu (Don Frega) writes:
>>In article <1993Nov16.1...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>>th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The funny thing is when Churchill drove the car into Mexico. All of
>>> the locals made fun of it there ("Nova" means "exploding star" in
>>> Spanish),
>>
>>Actually, it means, quite literally, "no go". This was a big marketing
>>gaffe when Chevrolet introduced the Nova to Mexico. Along similar lines,
>>when Coca-Cola translated "Coke brings you back to life" into Japanese, it
>>came out "Coke brings your ancestors back from the dead", quite an insult
>>in Japanese culture.

Actually, that was *Pepsi* that bring
s your ancestors back from the dead. And, incidentally, Coca-Cola's
nearest phonetic equivalent in Chinese means "Bite the wax Tadpole."

John Switzer

unread,
Nov 17, 1993, 12:12:30 PM11/17/93
to

Sounds like we'd better get Cecil Adams and Marilyn vos Savant back
into the ring on this one.
--
John Switzer | "It's not guns that kill people,
| It's these little hard things!"
Internet: j...@netcom.com | -- the Flash from
CompuServe: 74076,1250 | "The Trickster Returns"

Articulate Mandible

unread,
Nov 17, 1993, 3:56:45 PM11/17/93
to
(Edward Keyes) bites:

|>Actually, "nova" refers to an exploding star in English. I believe
|>in Spanish, it means "does not go", explaining why the locals were
|>making fun of the car.

Hoodathunk ANYone'd bite on that bait? We gotta give Ted a lotta credit for
this catch
--
Nolan "Jack Warden" Hinshaw
Internet: no...@twg.com Dingalingnet: (415)962-7197

Lee Rudolph

unread,
Nov 17, 1993, 8:05:59 PM11/17/93
to
m...@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:

>In article <keyesea-16...@129.59.18.63>, key...@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Edward Keyes) writes...
>>> The funny thing is when Churchill drove the car into Mexico. All of
>>> the locals made fun of it there ("Nova" means "exploding star" in
>>> Spanish), and he went back to England in a huff.

>>Actually, "nova" refers to an exploding star in English. I believe
>>in Spanish, it means "does not go", explaining why the locals were
>>making fun of the car.

>Actually, "nova" (as opposed to "no va") refers to an exploding star in
>pretty much any western language, and probably some others too. It's simply
>a technical term imported from Latin, meaning "new".

Well maybe the context was all cut out but as far as I can see from what
is here, Churchill's car was *not* imported from Latin America, that was
the whole point, it was imported *into* Latin America and that's where
he had all the trouble and finally had to trade it in for a Hough (I
think that's actually the right spelling of the name although it *is*
pronounced Huff and I guess a Berliner or whatever you are, who had
only *heard* of Houghs and Bearcats and Brooms and all those neat brands
but had never seen them written down in english, could make the spelling
mistake very naturally), of course he wouldn't actually have "went back
to England" *in* it it would have been in the cargo holds, I dont think
the Queen Mary let people ride acutally *in* their vehicles unlike say
the "Spirit of Free Enterprise" but how far can you go on a ferry,
anyway? BTW that must have been the trip when he went to Phoenix and
coined the word "Iron Curtain", it's funny to think of that when you
consider how much iron has to do with novas. What indeed is this
thing called 'karma'? Yes it does make
you wonder?

Lee "ghia?" Rudolph

Ted Frank

unread,
Nov 18, 1993, 12:19:22 AM11/18/93
to
In article <lrudolph....@black.clarku.edu> lrud...@black.clarku.edu (Lee Rudolph) writes:
>BTW that must have been the trip when he went to Phoenix and
>coined the word "Iron Curtain", it's funny to think of that when you
>consider how much iron has to do with novas.

I think that trip was to Philadelphia. The "ph" must've confused you.
It was the time he made himself a laughing stock because he accidentally
called himself a cheese-steak sandwich at the conclusion of his speech
at the Liberty Bell there, where they have the statute of Rocky Marciano.

David DeLaney

unread,
Nov 17, 1993, 6:17:31 PM11/17/93
to
In article <1993Nov16....@martha.utcc.utk.edu> d...@martha.utcc.utk.edu
(I) wrote: [off-topic Prodigy info deleted]

sorry folks, I got (possibly maliciously) crossposted. Won't happen again if
I have any say.
Dave
apologetically

David DeLaney

unread,
Nov 17, 1993, 7:12:19 PM11/17/93
to
In article <1993Nov17.1...@rchland.ibm.com> jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com

(Jared Dahl) writes:
>In article <1993Nov16.2...@martha.utcc.utk.edu>,
d...@martha.utcc.utk.edu (I) write:
>|> In article <CGLw9...@world.std.com> pdr...@world.std.com (pencil dragon)
>|> writes:
>|> >Pencildragon here,
>|> >In answer to Lee Rudolph's query, why is this thead on asb?
>|> >It is well documented that Churchill was brutally beaten by one of
>|> >his schoolmasters. That's the only clue I have.
>|>
>|> ObBait: Didn't Pink Floyd write a song commemorating this?
>
>ObHook: Wasn't that on their three sided album?
>
ObSinker: I thought it was a three-sided *drummer*.

Dave "or was it a love triangle?" DeLaney

Daniel B Case

unread,
Nov 18, 1993, 2:39:00 PM11/18/93
to
In article <2ccdc7$4...@panix.com>, ho...@panix.com (Homi!) writes...

>Err, that means "no go" as it "it wont go"
>
>Not a good name for a car in spanish speaking countries.
>--
>100%DAV ho...@panix.com
> "The guy blows $5 billion on a Seawolf submarine and can't spend a few d
>dollars to fly in protection." -- An unnamed Lt. Col. on Aspin's Somalia
>decisions, as quoted by NEWSWEEK's David Hackworth, 10/18 issue.

Amazing! Even after you take the first fish off the hook, it keeps haulin'em
in!

Dan "Perhaps this is like that Ripley's believe it or not cartoon where the
three fish in the act of eating each other all came in on the same hook" Case

ObBondage: Well, that *is* an example of the food *chain*.

Daniel Case State University of New York at Buffalo
Prodigy: WDNS15D | GEnie: DCASE.10
Ceci n'est pas une pipe
V140...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu dc...@acsu.buffalo.edu

cask...@ix.wcc.govt.nz

unread,
Nov 18, 1993, 5:01:15 PM11/18/93
to
In article <1993Nov18....@martha.utcc.utk.edu>, d...@martha.utcc.utk.edu (David DeLaney) writes:
>In article <1993Nov17.1...@rchland.ibm.com> jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com
>(Jared Dahl) writes:
>>In article <1993Nov16.2...@martha.utcc.utk.edu>,
>d...@martha.utcc.utk.edu (I) write:
>>|> In article <CGLw9...@world.std.com> pdr...@world.std.com (pencil dragon)
>>|> writes:
>>|> >Pencildragon here,
>>|> >In answer to Lee Rudolph's query, why is this thead on asb?
>>|> >It is well documented that Churchill was brutally beaten by one of
>>|> >his schoolmasters. That's the only clue I have.
>>|>
>>|> ObBait: Didn't Pink Floyd write a song commemorating this?
>>
>>ObHook: Wasn't that on their three sided album?
>>
>ObSinker: I thought it was a three-sided *drummer*.

ObSnag: ...who spontaneously combusted.

ObCatchCount: I don't think you should include those who confine themselves to
discussing the Monty Hall problem unless they make reference to other parts of
the original posting. If only to stop the boat sinking.

Steve "followups set to AFU only for the halibut" Caskey

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
/|\ | Steve Caskey (cask...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz) is also found at |
/ | \ | man...@schools.minedu.govt.nz where he's paid to pretend to be |
| | the system manager. *Disclaimer: It's not my fault. Really. |
/ \ +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
_/ \_ THWACK, plop, clubble clubble clubble :-) (The Mk 1 "Decapicon")

Bob D'Amore

unread,
Nov 18, 1993, 12:18:42 PM11/18/93
to
In article <jrsCGn...@netcom.com> j...@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>In article <1993Nov16.1...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> pay...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Bernd Paysan) writes:
>>
>>In article <1993Nov16.1...@midway.uchicago.edu>, th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

<a whole lot of non-Trek stuff deleted>

Would someone please explain the logic underlying the conclusion that
this discussion somehow belongs in this group???

--

US MAIL: Bob D'Amore Concurrent Computer Corp.
FAX: 908-870-5952 2 Crescent Pl. Oceanport NJ 07757 Ph: 908-870-4654
UUCP: princeton!ocpt!catfish!bobd or bo...@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com

Omaha Sternberg

unread,
Nov 18, 1993, 9:12:33 PM11/18/93
to
lrud...@black.clarku.edu (Lee Rudolph) writes:

>m...@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:

>Lee "ghia?" Rudolph

You know, this doesn't seem to have much to do with Star Trek,
but then, it doesn't have much to do with the other group its currently
on...alt.sex.bondage. This is weird.

Omaha

David Earl Johnston

unread,
Nov 18, 1993, 10:08:55 PM11/18/93
to
No offense, but I can't help but laugh at the thought that Nova means
exploding star in Spanish. The post here earlier was correct... Nova is
an English word (derived wherever) meaning exploding star. In Spanish, we
break it up into No Va. No meaning (obviously) no and va being a verb
tense on 'go'. Therefore, Nova is quite literally, 'It doesn't go!'.
Hence, Chevy kinda lost the Mexican market there. (I almost said Ford
and almost got flamed by nitpickers such as myself :) ooops!!)
dave

VINH

unread,
Nov 18, 1993, 11:37:36 PM11/18/93
to
>>>In <CG4Ky...@freenet.carleton.ca> ab...@Freenet.carleton.ca (Robert Allison) writes:
>>There was the time Churchill was on Monty Hall's "Let's Make A Deal."
>>He had picked one of the three doors, and Monty opened one of the
>>other two to reveal a goat. Monty gave Churchill the opportunity

>> etc....


Churchill had a 1/2 chance. This is due to the nature of game, which is
that Monty will open 1 WRONG door regardless of whatever Churchill chooses.

After Monty has openned 1 door, there are two left.

And this is the game. The player will always have two choices. The
initial three-choice is merely foreplay.


Tim Gallagher

unread,
Nov 18, 1993, 5:20:34 PM11/18/93
to
>>>Illegitimi non carborundum - don't let the bastards grind you down.
>>
>>Anyone know any good Churchill stories?
>
>The funny thing is when Churchill drove the car into Mexico. All of
>the locals made fun of it there ("Nova" means "exploding star" in
>Spanish), and he went back to England in a huff.

Wrongo, pal. Chevrolet years ago wanted to find out why sales of the Nova
did so poorly in Central and South America. It wasn't until someone found
out that the local joke was that Nova really meant "no va", which literally
translates in English to "won't go".
--
Timothy Sean Gallagher - Compudata Inc.
The fool, the mad fool that thinks my views are the same as my company's...

"I've got Premier Kissov on the line, and he's hopping mad!" - Dr. Strangelove

John Rehling

unread,
Nov 19, 1993, 3:48:52 AM11/19/93
to
I almost made the correction on the definition of "no va"
myself, until I read on and saw something about someone leaving in a
huff, and then that becoming a car called "Huff" and I realized that
the whole thing was a joke.
As the whole "no va" thing has taken on cliche-anecdote
status, a parody of it with "nova" meaning exploding star, which is of
course EXACTLY what it means in English, but still not an outstanding
image of something you want to get in and drive is pretty funny. But
not when it's explained, huh?
I'm not sure if the automakers originally meant for the
"exploding star"="dazzling/brilliant" side of the meaning to attract
Anglophonic buyers, or the Latin "nova"="new". New being one of
advertisers' top three words. (Free and sex rounding out the top
three.)
BTW, Douglas Hofstadter, to whom one of these groups is
devoted, thought the "exploding star" thing was very funny.
-JAR
--
"Don't hate me because I'm beautiful."
-Kelly LeBrock

Kenneth C. Mitchell

unread,
Nov 19, 1993, 2:04:47 AM11/19/93
to
Ted Frank (th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu) wrote:

: In article <CGBw...@vaccine.worlds.com> war...@nysernet.org writes:
: >In <CG4Ky...@freenet.carleton.ca> ab...@Freenet.carleton.ca (Robert Allison) writes:
: >>Illegitimi non carborundum - don't let the bastards grind you down.
: >
: >Anyone know any good Churchill stories?

: There was the time Churchill was on Monty Hall's "Let's Make A Deal."


: He had picked one of the three doors, and Monty opened one of the
: other two to reveal a goat. Monty gave Churchill the opportunity

: to switch doors, but Churchill remained resolute, refusing despite


: plaintive pleas from Monty. Sure enough, when Churchill opened the
: door, it was a new car, a Chevrolet Nova. (I guess he had a fifty-
: fifty chance.)

: The funny thing is when Churchill drove the car into Mexico. All of


: the locals made fun of it there ("Nova" means "exploding star" in

: Spanish), and he went back to England in a huff. Rolls Royce made a

: very big deal of this at the time, how Churchill choice a Chrysler
: Huff over a Chevrolet Nova, when Britain was making cars that were
: guaranteed to never break down. The resulting scandal resulted in
: both the Quiz Show Hearings in Congress and the downfall of the Whig
: party in Britain. Just goes to show: a country without a constitution
: is like a three-sided record.

: I understand it was Churchill who proposed the rule that 2000 shouldn't
: be a leap year as it was the 6000th anniversary of the Earth. Or was
: it Gladstone?

: --

: ted frank | "I'm always right and everybody else is always
: th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu | wrong! What's to argue about?"
: the u of c law school |
: standard disclaimers | -- Calvin

I heard on Paul Harvey yesterday that they're having a Liar's Contest in
Englad this week; Ted, ya oughta go enter, you're a shoo-in.

(For the record: "NOVA" in Spanish means "no GO", an obviously poor name
for a car. Too bad nobody at GM back then spoke Spanish.)
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Mitchell |"After this week's elections, you know, the fastest
8037 Stone Canyon |way to get Senator Packwood out of office is to have
Citrus Heights, CA |President Clinton step forward and endorse him. He'd
95610 |be out of there, wow, like that."
kmit...@netcom.com | Jay Leno 11/5/93
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

William VanHorne

unread,
Nov 19, 1993, 7:47:46 AM11/19/93
to
In article <2cha2h$h...@news.u.washington.edu> om...@hardy.u.washington.edu (Omaha Sternberg) writes:

> You know, this doesn't seem to have much to do with Star Trek,
>but then, it doesn't have much to do with the other group its currently
>on...alt.sex.bondage. This is weird.
>
> Omaha

It's not weird if you understand Ted Frank and who he is fronting for.
Mr. "Frank" (note that "Ted Frank" is Knarf Det spelled backwards and
that Knarf Det was the Sumerian God of Lies) is well known for his
ingenious methods of brainwashing people into accepting the New World
Order. The CIA is trying to put thoughts into my head using microwaves
but they won't get away with it. The Knights Templar are the real Zionists.
Did you know that your cable TV converter can "talk back" to the
government? Certain people have found certain things in certain places
that have yet to be revealed.

No, Omaha, not weird. Frightening.

---Bill VanHorne

Michael Stemper

unread,
Nov 18, 1993, 1:50:26 PM11/18/93
to
In article <CGLst...@hawnews.watson.ibm.com>, c1sm...@watson.ibm.com (John Smolin) writes:
*In article <petercj.753479093@camelot>, pet...@camelot.bradley.edu (Peter Jones) writes:
*|> >Oh no! Don't you read Scientific American? He had a one third chance!
*|> >This is his initial chance, because he remained resolute - he doesn't
*|> >get a better chance by remaining resolute.
*|>
*
*A poll: How many of you think this post was adding to
* the bait? How many think it was falling for it?

I do.

--
#include <Standard_Disclaimer.h>
Michael F. Stemper
Senior Vogon
mste...@empros.com

Rob Unverzagt

unread,
Nov 19, 1993, 10:45:44 AM11/19/93
to
In article <1993Nov18.0...@midway.uchicago.edu> th...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> In article <lrudolph....@black.clarku.edu> lrud...@black.clarku.edu (Lee Rudolph) writes:
> >BTW that must have been the trip when he went to Phoenix and
> >coined the word "Iron Curtain", it's funny to think of that when you
> >consider how much iron has to do with novas.
>
> I think that trip was to Philadelphia. The "ph" must've confused you.
> It was the time he made himself a laughing stock because he accidentally
> called himself a cheese-steak sandwich at the conclusion of his speech
> at the Liberty Bell there, where they have the statute of Rocky Marciano.

Actually, I think that trip was to Phnom Penh. Not only did the
"ph" throw you, but the similarity of "Penh" to "Penn" led to some
kind of Freudian slip. (I know, because the only city in the
world with a statute of Rocky Marciano is in Cambodia, and I've
been cited in violation that statute.) Anyway, he was there to
investigate reports of the discovery of teflon, which contrary to
popular belief was not invented for the U.S. space program.

shag

Rob Unverzagt |
sh...@aerospace.aero.org | "We need your help to defeat the monster."
unve...@courier2.aero.org |

DaveHatunen

unread,
Nov 19, 1993, 10:17:49 AM11/19/93
to
In article <kmitchelC...@netcom.com> kmit...@netcom.com (Kenneth C. Mitchell) writes:

>I heard on Paul Harvey yesterday that they're having a Liar's Contest in
>Englad this week; Ted, ya oughta go enter, you're a shoo-in.

Ahem.

Experienced AFUers *never* lie.

>(For the record: "NOVA" in Spanish means "no GO", an obviously poor name
>for a car. Too bad nobody at GM back then spoke Spanish.)

Naah. "Nova" is spanish for exploding star. "No va" means "It doesn't
go". I guess no one at your house speaks spanish either.

Christopher Horymski

unread,
Nov 19, 1993, 3:15:15 PM11/19/93
to
[attributions deleted, who can tell anymore?]

>>>|>
>>>|> ObBait: Didn't Pink Floyd write a song commemorating this?
>>>
>>>ObHook: Wasn't that on their three sided album?
>>>
>>ObSinker: I thought it was a three-sided *drummer*.
>
>ObSnag: ...who spontaneously combusted.
>
>ObCatchCount: I don't think you should include those who confine themselves to
>discussing the Monty Hall problem unless they make reference to other parts of
>the original posting. If only to stop the boat sinking.
>
>Steve "followups set to AFU only for the halibut" Caskey

ObNova: exploding newsgroup.
ObSuperNova: exploding hierarchy.
ObTallulah: Once bought a lion cub from a Vegas lion tamer, and named
him Winston Churchill.

Chris "less than meets the eye" Horymski

"Report all obscene mail to your potsmaster."


Chuck Strouss

unread,
Nov 19, 1993, 8:20:20 PM11/19/93
to
We've wasted many hours here at work arguing the Monty Hall program.
It is really more of a psychology problem than a logic problem --
every time someone comes up with a big explanation of why their
answer is correct, a bit of investigation reveals their assumptions.
In the typical statement of the Monty Hall problem, you're given
the fact that there are two booby prizes. The Winston story did
not provide this information.

When I got into my first argument about this, I proceeded to write a
program that proved I was right (indicated that it doesn't matter
whether you switch or not). When I stepped my friend through the
logic of my program, I realized where he was making a different
assumption than I.

The question is, what information is given by Monty Hall's revelation?
Does Monty always show you a booby prize only when you picked the
right door? Did he pick a door at random, and it just ended up being
a booby prize? Maybe he always shows you one of the booby prizes
(there is always one you didn't pick)? Perhaps if you are a loyal
fan of the show, you can gather enough statistics about his behavior
to make an intelligent choice, but not given the usual statement
of the problem.

In article <ian.75...@cs.brandeis.edu> i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) writes:


>th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>
>>There was the time Churchill was on Monty Hall's "Let's Make A Deal."
>>He had picked one of the three doors, and Monty opened one of the
>>other two to reveal a goat. Monty gave Churchill the opportunity
>>to switch doors, but Churchill remained resolute, refusing despite
>>plaintive pleas from Monty. Sure enough, when Churchill opened the
>>door, it was a new car, a Chevrolet Nova. (I guess he had a fifty-
>>fifty chance.)
>

>Nope -- he had a 1/3 chance! The Monty Hall Problem is a bizzare math
>phenominon.
>
>It works as follows:

Joe Foster of Borg

unread,
Nov 21, 1993, 1:56:03 AM11/21/93
to
In article <1993Nov16....@martha.utcc.utk.edu>, d...@martha.utcc.utk.edu (David DeLaney) writes:
> In article <2cb6ho$f...@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com> rip...@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) writes:

> >[meta-mega-troll deleted]

'nuff said.

> ObUL: Rush Limbaugh has recently revealed that his girlfriend is the exec at
> Simon and Schuster who was responsible for his best-sellers (Janice Regan);
> this is obscurely comforting, somehow.

Finally! Something appropriate to alt.sex.bondage! :-)

--
Joe Foster (j...@bftsi0.uucp)
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!

John Brinckerhoff Clements

unread,
Nov 20, 1993, 2:49:30 PM11/20/93
to
In article <1993Nov19....@cs.uno.edu>,

VINH <cshf_p...@uno.edu> wrote:
>>>>In <CG4Ky...@freenet.carleton.ca> ab...@Freenet.carleton.ca (Robert Allison) writes:
>
>Churchill had a 1/2 chance. This is due to the nature of game, which is
>that Monty will open 1 WRONG door regardless of whatever Churchill chooses.
>

You're wrong, but I'm too tired to explain it.

ObUL: In his later years, Monty Hall turned his considerable talents in
door-opening to the somewhat more lucrative field of cat burglary.

john "i'd rather switch than fight" clements


Dave Ratcliffe

unread,
Nov 20, 1993, 7:42:50 PM11/20/93
to
In article <CGp6r...@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com>, bo...@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com (Bob D'Amore) writes:
- In article <jrsCGn...@netcom.com> j...@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
- >In article <1993Nov16.1...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> pay...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Bernd Paysan) writes:
- >>
- >>In article <1993Nov16.1...@midway.uchicago.edu>, th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
-
- <a whole lot of non-Trek stuff deleted>
-
- Would someone please explain the logic underlying the conclusion that
- this discussion somehow belongs in this group???

Because it's cross-posted to other groups where the discussion DOES
belong? Just a guess, mind you.

ObTrekbait:

Bill Shatner is surprised that the other cast members disliked the
ground he thought about walking on. He shoulda listened to his wife,
Majel, when she told him about it in the second season.

Dave "warp this" Ratcliffe

--
vogon1!frackit!da...@cse.psu.edu | Dave Ratcliffe |
- or - ..uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave | <*> |
- or - dave.ra...@p777.f211.n270.z1.fidonet.org | Harrisburg, Pa. |

Dave Ratcliffe

unread,
Nov 20, 1993, 7:47:43 PM11/20/93
to
In article <2cha2h$h...@news.u.washington.edu>, om...@hardy.u.washington.edu (Omaha Sternberg) writes:
- lrud...@black.clarku.edu (Lee Rudolph) writes:
- >m...@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
- >>In article <keyesea-16...@129.59.18.63>, key...@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Edward Keyes) writes...
- >>>> The funny thing is when Churchill drove the car into Mexico. All of
- >>>> the locals made fun of it there ("Nova" means "exploding star" in
- >>>> Spanish), and he went back to England in a huff.

- >>>Actually, "nova" refers to an exploding star in English. I believe
- >>>in Spanish, it means "does not go", explaining why the locals were
- >>>making fun of the car.

- >>Actually, "nova" (as opposed to "no va") refers to an exploding star in
- >>pretty much any western language, and probably some others too. It's simply
- >>a technical term imported from Latin, meaning "new".

- >Well maybe the context was all cut out but as far as I can see from what
- >is here, Churchill's car was *not* imported from Latin America, that was
- >the whole point, it was imported *into* Latin America and that's where

[ ... deletia ... ]

- >consider how much iron has to do with novas. What indeed is this
- >thing called 'karma'? Yes it does make
- >you wonder?
-
- >Lee "ghia?" Rudolph
-
- You know, this doesn't seem to have much to do with Star Trek,
- but then, it doesn't have much to do with the other group its currently
- on...alt.sex.bondage. This is weird.

No, this is Usenet. Wierd is on deck six, corridor 3 near the Jeffries
tube with the holographic print of Majel in her birthday suit taped to
the access hatch.

Dave "or is that deck 3, corridor 6???" Ratcliffe

Jason Fliegel

unread,
Nov 21, 1993, 3:49:29 PM11/21/93
to
Alright.
I'm reading this on rec.arts.startrk.misc and I am sick of killing it
Anybody who follows this damn thing up from now on please
remove everything but soc.culture.britain from the Newsgroups:
line. That way, it will only go to the relevant newsgroup
Thanks
Jason Fliegel

--
"`I am that merry wanderer of the night'? I am that giggling-dangerous-
totally-bloody-psychotic-menace-to-life-and-limb, more like it."
Peaseblossom, on Puck in Neil Gaiman's version of Shakespeare's
_A_Midsummer_Night's_Dream_

Phil Gustafson

unread,
Nov 21, 1993, 4:41:13 PM11/21/93
to
SDUP...@DELPHI.COM <sdup...@news.delphi.com> wrote:

>The magazine the Skeptical Inquirer discussed this question at length once
>( unfortunately I can't remember the date or issue ) and came to this
>conclusion: when offered the chance to switch choices, you should switch
>because there is a 1/2 chance this decision will be correct while there
>is only a 1/3 chance your original choice was correct.

Interesting. There must be a 1/6 chance that nothing happens at all.

Gene Miya, an eccentric but well-respected local netter, tries to keep
Bay Area posts reasonably directed with a periodic posting. It doesn't
work very well, but I might as well give it a try here:

--begin inclusion---

From eug...@amelia.nas.nasa.gov Thu Nov 18 13:26:29 PST 1993
Subject: [l/m 6/1/92] A short note on posting, cross-posting
Summary: Stop, Think, Observe, Plan
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 12:01:07 GMT

This is a quick lesson on posting (to any group). Unfortunately,
inconsistencies of news and notes systems will limit some of this information.
See news.announce.newusers and consult (by mail) a news/system guru if you
need help, even if that guru is on another system.

This is a news message header and some hints to remember:

Newsgroups: <- if you cross post or use "general" use the Followup-To: line
Subject: <- EDIT this field if you refine your subject
Summary:
Expires: <- for dated postings
References: <- most systems take care of this
Sender:
Reply-To:
Followup-To: <- consider using this field to limit cross posting or "poster"
Distribution: <- consider limiting posting to ba, ca, usa, na, and so forth
Organization:
Keywords:

News is potentially a beautiful communication tool. Unfortunately, it is
too easily abused. Cross-posting isn't bad, but just like forgetting to
edit a Subject line, you can have unintended effects. If you are not
absolutely clear on what each field does, ask for help FIRST. CONSIDER
all newsgroups you are posting and make certain you use a minimum number.
Use the followup line and consider the offer of posting summaries (makes you
the center of attention. Place the most relevant newsgroup first!
If you want a discussion to appear in multiple groups like:

Newsgroups: ba.xxx,ca.yyy,na.zzz,ba.general
#where xxx, yyy, and zzz are groups, then use a Followup line like:
Followup-To: ba.xxx
#LEAVING general out. ba.xxx should be the most relevant group.

like:

Newsgroups: comp.graphics,ba.seminars
Followup-To: comp.graphics

Consider that if you have a topic of non-immediate interest that you post
with using a limited domain/distribution like:

Newsgroups: rec.audio,ba.wanted
Distribution: ba
Followup-To: rec.audio
#Keeping out of general, getting the audio philes and those seeking.

Remember: KEEP ADS in the market groups, and save general for important
announcements.

Oh? You didn't know about rec, misc, talk, alt, news, sci, comp? Well!


--end inclusion--

Needless to say, it helps to use special care responding to posts with
obviously malicious crossposting.

Phil

Peter Jones

unread,
Nov 21, 1993, 7:08:54 PM11/21/93
to
sdup...@news.delphi.com (SDUP...@DELPHI.COM) writes:


>The magazine the Skeptical Inquirer discussed this question at length once
>( unfortunately I can't remember the date or issue ) and came to this
>conclusion: when offered the chance to switch choices, you should switch
>because there is a 1/2 chance this decision will be correct while there

>is only a 1/3 chance your original choice was correct. What makes the
>differecne is that when the host opened one door he wasn't acting at random
>but from absolute knowledge of what was behind it. Because of his prior
>knowledge no probability is involved in or effected by the choice: you had
>a one in three chance of being right the first time and after one door is
>open you still have a 1/3 chance of being right, because you chose from
>three. But if you switch, you are chosing from two, and therefore your
>choice has 1/2 chance of being correct.

Wrong. When he gives you the chance to change, you have a 1/2 chance of
being correct: meaning that if you stayed the same in 10 shows, 5 of them
you would be right, five you would be wrong. (statistically speaking). If
you switch in 10 shows, five you will be right, five you will be wrong.
You have two choices: you say that the second choice (switching) has a 1/2
chance of being right. That means that the first choice (staying) also has
a 1/2 chance. (Assuming that there is a "right" door, the probabilities
must sum to 1. If the "switch" door has a 1/2 chance, and there is only
one other door (the "stay" door), the "stay" door must also have a 1/2
chance.)

That first choice is useless, because Monty removes one of the choices
again. He says, in effect: okay, now there are only two doors; you have
two choices: door A (the one you already picked) or door B (the door that
you didn't pick and I didn't open). Choose one. They have equal chances
of being right.

>I know it sounds odd, but if you want to take paper and work on it for
>awhile you'll see that that the person who switches will win more often.

Initial conditions Switch Dont
123 pick show
wll 1 2 Lose Win
wll 1 3 Lose Win
wll 2 1 Impossible (1 is a winner--wont be shown)
wll 2 3 Win Lose
wll 3 1 Impossible
wll 3 2 Win Lose
lwl 1 2 Impossible
lwl 1 3 Win Lose
lwl 2 1 Lose Win
lwl 2 3 Lose Win
lwl 3 1 Win Lose
lwl 3 2 Impossible
llw 1 2 Win Lose
llw 1 3 Impossible
llw 2 1 Win Lose
llw 2 3 Impossible
llw 3 1 Lose Win
llw 3 2 Lose Win
----------------------------------------------------
Totals: Possible=12 Wins=6 Wins=6
Probability of winning: If switch=6/12=1/2 If stay=6/12=1/2
(impossible cases don't count for the total. Just there to show that I
wasn't leaving out important cases to weight the total.)

(Note, I left out the obvious impossibilities of pick=show)

I hope this clears up the whole problem.
There is a 1/2 chance of you being right, no matter what you do.

Case closed
--
Peter C. Jones pet...@camelot.bradley.edu
Licensed only for non-commercial, private exhibition in homes.
Any public performance, other use, or copying is strictly prohibited.
All rights under copyright reserved.

bill nelson

unread,
Nov 21, 1993, 9:42:09 PM11/21/93
to
pet...@camelot.bradley.edu (Peter Jones) writes:
: >open you still have a 1/3 chance of being right, because you chose from

: >three. But if you switch, you are chosing from two, and therefore your
: >choice has 1/2 chance of being correct.

: Wrong. When he gives you the chance to change, you have a 1/2 chance of

Nope. You have a 2/3 chance of being right - since Monty has collapsed both
chances into one by showing you what is behind one of the two doors that
initially has a 1/3rd chance each of being correct. However, if you want
to pick the open door, which has a zero chance of being correct, I am sure
that he would not object.

: being correct: meaning that if you stayed the same in 10 shows, 5 of them


: you would be right, five you would be wrong. (statistically speaking). If
: you switch in 10 shows, five you will be right, five you will be wrong.
: You have two choices: you say that the second choice (switching) has a 1/2
: chance of being right. That means that the first choice (staying) also has
: a 1/2 chance. (Assuming that there is a "right" door, the probabilities
: must sum to 1. If the "switch" door has a 1/2 chance, and there is only
: one other door (the "stay" door), the "stay" door must also have a 1/2
: chance.)

You are starting with an invalid premise.

: That first choice is useless, because Monty removes one of the choices


: again. He says, in effect: okay, now there are only two doors; you have
: two choices: door A (the one you already picked) or door B (the door that
: you didn't pick and I didn't open). Choose one. They have equal chances
: of being right.

See above. Your analysis is false.

I am leaving out Peter's listing of possibilities, which is also incorrect.

Bill

bill nelson

unread,
Nov 21, 1993, 9:56:47 PM11/21/93
to
pet...@camelot.bradley.edu (Peter Jones) writes:

Your analysis is the intuitive solution, and is wrong.
It is a bit tricky to understand.

: Initial conditions Switch Dont


: 123 pick show
: wll 1 2 Lose Win
: wll 1 3 Lose Win

The chance is 1/6 for each of the above.

This is where you go wrong. You assume that these two
have the same probability as the next two. This is not
the case. Since your door is the winning door, either
can be shown freely. The same is not true of the other
two - here the choice is limited to one door (so they
have twice the probability of being correct.

: wll 2 3 Win Lose
: wll 3 2 Win Lose

The chance is 1/3rd for each of these two.

You don't need the rest, analysis of one door is sufficient.

If Monty was free to randomly move the prize behind the doors,
and then open an unchosen door with no prize, then the chance
would be 50/50.

Bill

Daniel Frank

unread,
Nov 21, 1993, 11:14:01 PM11/21/93
to
Eveybody's wrong, the odds are 5/17 that you'll win, no matter what you do.

Daniel "It's in the Bible, Leviticus 16:29" Frank
--
* Daniel Frank danf...@cs.utexas.edu danf...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu *
* If I can't trust the President of the United States, who can I *
* trust? --- Superman to JFK after the President impersonated Clark *
* Kent to protect Supes's secret identity.(_Action Comics_ #309) *

Stephanie Claudene Weirich

unread,
Nov 21, 1993, 10:14:56 PM11/21/93
to
In article <petercj.753925190@camelot>, pet...@camelot.bradley.edu (Peter Jones) writes:
|> sdup...@news.delphi.com (SDUP...@DELPHI.COM) writes:
|>
|>
|> >The magazine the Skeptical Inquirer discussed this question at length once
[snip]

|> Wrong. When he gives you the chance to change, you have a 1/2 chance of
|> being correct: meaning that if you stayed the same in 10 shows, 5 of them
|> you would be right, five you would be wrong. (statistically speaking). If
|> you switch in 10 shows, five you will be right, five you will be wrong.
|> You have two choices: you say that the second choice (switching) has a 1/2
|> chance of being right. That means that the first choice (staying) also has
|> a 1/2 chance. (Assuming that there is a "right" door, the probabilities
|> must sum to 1. If the "switch" door has a 1/2 chance, and there is only
|> one other door (the "stay" door), the "stay" door must also have a 1/2
|> chance.)
|>
|> That first choice is useless, because Monty removes one of the choices
|> again. He says, in effect: okay, now there are only two doors; you have
|> two choices: door A (the one you already picked) or door B (the door that
|> you didn't pick and I didn't open). Choose one. They have equal chances
|> of being right.
|>

|> Initial conditions Switch Dont
|> 123 pick show
|> wll 1 2 Lose Win
|> wll 1 3 Lose Win
|> wll 2 1 Impossible (1 is a winner--wont be shown)
|> wll 2 3 Win Lose
|> wll 3 1 Impossible
|> wll 3 2 Win Lose

Ok, here is the problem in your chart. I'll show it to you with just the
first case of wll. Say you pick 2. The probability that the
prize is behind your door is 1/3 and behind the other 2 doors
is 2/3. You say it is impossible that Monty will show what's behind door
number one. So he has to show what's behind door number three *twice*.
From start to finish there's constantly a 1/3 chance that the
prize is not behind your door. So that leaves a 2/3 chance that it
is behind one of the other doors, 1 or 3, and when you know it is not
behind door 3, there is a 2/3 chance that the prize is behind door
number one.

I know this is counter-intuitive.
In the words of my discrete math professor, "The way to approach this
problem is not to think about it."


|>
|> Case closed
|> --
|> Peter C. Jones pet...@camelot.bradley.edu
|> Licensed only for non-commercial, private exhibition in homes.
|> Any public performance, other use, or copying is strictly prohibited.
|> All rights under copyright reserved.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE WEIRICH
swei...@owlnet.rice.edu
___________________________________________________________________

Laurence Marshall Wright

unread,
Nov 21, 1993, 11:31:01 PM11/21/93
to
I remember the hearing of the time Churchill, in
his cups at a dinner party, was introduced to his hostess,
a remarkably homely aristocrat.
Churchill looked at her, and stated "Madame, You're
Ugly!"
"Sir Winston!" exclaimed the shocked hostess,"You're
drunk!"
"True, but *I* shall be sober in the morning!"

LMW


Moreno Giovannoni

unread,
Nov 22, 1993, 7:49:38 AM11/22/93
to

Remember the FIAT "Rustica" which bombed in the US? Means rustic in Italian.
--


Jared Dahl

unread,
Nov 22, 1993, 9:06:35 AM11/22/93
to

In article <hatunenC...@netcom.com>, hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:
|> In article <kmitchelC...@netcom.com> kmit...@netcom.com (Kenneth C. Mitchell) writes:
|>
|> >I heard on Paul Harvey yesterday that they're having a Liar's Contest in
|> >Englad this week; Ted, ya oughta go enter, you're a shoo-in.
|>
|> Ahem.
|>
|> Experienced AFUers *never* lie.
|>
|> >(For the record: "NOVA" in Spanish means "no GO", an obviously poor name
|> >for a car. Too bad nobody at GM back then spoke Spanish.)
|>
|> Naah. "Nova" is spanish for exploding star. "No va" means "It doesn't
|> go". I guess no one at your house speaks spanish either.

I think you guys have your limit now. Go home.

Jared Dahl
Opinions are mine, not my employers

GCS d--@ c++(++++) l++ u++ e-(*) m--- s+/+
n-(---)@ h--- f+ g+ w+@ t++(---) r(-) y+

Greg Germain c/o HRC project

unread,
Nov 22, 1993, 12:28:15 PM11/22/93
to

Case is not closed because you are wrong:

You should ALWAYS switch. Here's why:

you start with 3 doors. 1 out of 3 chances to pick the good door.

You pick a door.

NOW, think of the doors as GROUPS of doors. NOTHIng has been shown to you yet.

"Group" A is the door you picked.

Group B are comprised of the other two doors.

The probability of the good prize being in Group A is 1/3.

The probability of the good prize being in Group B is 2/3.`

So far i doubt i'll get arguement on this....

NOW, Monty shows you a door in Group B. Since he KNOWS where the prize,
he will show you the "bad" door.

HOWEVER, and this is the tricky part, he has NOT changed the relative
probabilities of the groups. Group B (the 2 door group) STILL has a
2/3 chance of having the good door. Group A (the one you picked)
still sits ar 1/3.

As for your list, Peter, I haven't studied it but i suspect you have left out
possibilities.

It took me a long time to understand this problem but thinking
of things in Groups does the trick. Furthermore, statisticians
agree with me.

Gregg

Cliff Heller

unread,
Nov 22, 1993, 12:34:11 PM11/22/93
to
In <petercj.753925190@camelot> pet...@camelot.bradley.edu (Peter Jones) writes:


>Wrong. When he gives you the chance to change, you have a 1/2 chance of
>being correct: meaning that if you stayed the same in 10 shows, 5 of them
>you would be right, five you would be wrong. (statistically speaking).

Actually, you are both wrong. As will be pointed out 1500 times in the
next few days. You especially, Peter. And I'd love the chance to put it
to the test and win money from you.

>>I know it sounds odd, but if you want to take paper and work on it for
>>awhile you'll see that that the person who switches will win more often.

You post a nice statistical analysis, only it is flawed.

The problem with your logic is like this.
Say I pick door number one. You treat the case where Monty opens door
number 2 and the case whre monty opens door number 3 as different cases.
They are not.

You will always win if your initial guess is incorrect (think about that).

The probability of your initial guess being incorrect is 1 - (probability
that it is correct). No one argues that the probability of the initial
guess being correct is 1/3. That is the only statistical event that takes
place. Monty just reveals some information, he does not perform a
statistical event.

--
/ \ The Reverend Void-Where-Prohibited fn...@panix.com
/<0>\ Church of Obfuscatology, Inc.
/ \ "King Kong died for your sins!"
/_______\ "Don't just eat a hamburger, eat the HELL out of it!"

Greg Germain c/o HRC project

unread,
Nov 22, 1993, 12:30:06 PM11/22/93
to

Peter,
I see what's wrong with your list: you cannot eliminate the "impossible"
entries from the list simply because Monty won't do it. They still
exist as probabilistic outcomes.

Gregg

Greg Germain c/o HRC project

unread,
Nov 22, 1993, 12:34:55 PM11/22/93
to

By the way..this is a GREAT example of how you can be wrong,
simply because of the way you look at things. It's a gret
lesson for those who think Science always equals truth.

and somethign worth pondering over when you are ready to defend
your position to the death.....


Gary Rosys

unread,
Nov 22, 1993, 6:50:47 PM11/22/93
to
cshf_p...@uno.edu (VINH) writes:

>>>There was the time Churchill was on Monty Hall's "Let's Make A Deal."
>>>He had picked one of the three doors, and Monty opened one of the
>>>other two to reveal a goat. Monty gave Churchill the opportunity

>>> etc....


>Churchill had a 1/2 chance. This is due to the nature of game, which is
>that Monty will open 1 WRONG door regardless of whatever Churchill chooses.

>After Monty has openned 1 door, there are two left.

>And this is the game. The player will always have two choices. The
>initial three-choice is merely foreplay.

This is why this is posted to alt.sex.bondage, as anyone can
tell you foreplay and backplay and especially back-and-forth play are
very important to all sexual acts, especially probeability, oops
probability.


--
grace, peace and love,
gary
ro...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu

Gary Rosys

unread,
Nov 22, 1993, 7:01:44 PM11/22/93
to
pet...@camelot.bradley.edu (Peter Jones) writes:

>sdup...@news.delphi.com (SDUP...@DELPHI.COM) writes:


>>The magazine the Skeptical Inquirer discussed this question at length once
>>( unfortunately I can't remember the date or issue ) and came to this
>>conclusion: when offered the chance to switch choices, you should switch
>>because there is a 1/2 chance this decision will be correct while there
>>is only a 1/3 chance your original choice was correct. What makes the
>>differecne is that when the host opened one door he wasn't acting at random
>>but from absolute knowledge of what was behind it. Because of his prior
>>knowledge no probability is involved in or effected by the choice: you had
>>a one in three chance of being right the first time and after one door is
>>open you still have a 1/3 chance of being right, because you chose from
>>three. But if you switch, you are chosing from two, and therefore your
>>choice has 1/2 chance of being correct.

>Wrong. When he gives you the chance to change, you have a 1/2 chance of


O.K. Folks the definative answer to this problem....

**** Spoiler Follows ****

You are all wrong.... the probability Winston gets the Nova
if he stays is 1... it happened, otherwise you don't get a joke.
Now go home and post to rec.sport.disc and talk about what to name
your news group they'll be hopping mad but they won't be me.

Roy Crabtree

unread,
Nov 22, 1993, 11:28:20 PM11/22/93
to
>In article <1993Nov16.1...@midway.uchicago.edu>, th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>There was the time Churchill was on Monty Hall's "Let's Make A Deal."
>>He had picked one of the three doors, and Monty opened one of the
>>other two to reveal a goat. Monty gave Churchill the opportunity
>>to switch doors, but Churchill remained resolute, refusing despite
>>plaintive pleas from Monty. Sure enough, when Churchill opened the
>>door, it was a new car, a Chevrolet Nova. (I guess he had a fifty-
>>fifty chance.)
>
>Oh no! Don't you read Scientific American? He had a one third chance!
>This is his initial chance, because he remained resolute - he doesn't
>get a better chance by remaining resolute.
>--

Actually, Bernd, this is the typical type of clarity that teddie reasons with.

He is studying very studiously to become one of the NEW crop
of American lawyers. In his world of legalese they actually DO
treat it as 1 chance in 2 (because to a lawyer it depends on
how you want to argue it!).

Logic and statistics and reality have little to do with it.

Cheers
royc

>Bernd Paysan
>"Late answers are wrong answers!"


roger colin shouse

unread,
Nov 23, 1993, 11:39:14 AM11/23/93
to

[portion deleted--we don't need more than one generalized case]

The flaw in your argument is as follows: Lable each of the 6 above
possibilities A through F. C and E are impossible. This means that
the odds of A or B occuring are 1/3 and the odds of D or F occuring
are 2/3. The increase in the probability of winning associated with
changing your door become clear when you imagine an analogous situation
with a deck of 52 cards. Martin Gardner's article in the Skeptical
Inquirer is a must read for anyone interested in this problem.


--
Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago Email: sh...@midway.uchicago.edu

Rich Carreiro

unread,
Nov 24, 1993, 7:49:54 AM11/24/93
to
In article <petercj.753925190@camelot> pet...@camelot.bradley.edu (Peter Jones) writes:
> >The magazine the Skeptical Inquirer discussed this question at length once
> >( unfortunately I can't remember the date or issue ) and came to this
> >conclusion: when offered the chance to switch choices, you should switch
> >because there is a 1/2 chance this decision will be correct while there

> Wrong. When he gives you the chance to change, you have a 1/2 chance of


> being correct: meaning that if you stayed the same in 10 shows, 5 of them

No. You're wrong. Look at it this way. Say there are 1,000,000 doors.
There is a prize behind one of them. You pick a door. There is a 1/1000000
change that you picked the prize, and a 999999/1000000 chance that the
prize is behind one of the doors you didn't pick. The host now opens
999,998 doors -- all empty. This does not change the 1/10^6 probability
that the prize is behind your door. How can it? Thus there is a 999999/1000000
chance that the door the host didn't open has the prize. I'd certainly
pick it.

> There is a 1/2 chance of you being right, no matter what you do.

Wrong..

> Case closed

Wrong.

Your event space is wrong. It should be:

123 picked stay switch
xoo 1 w l
xoo 2 l w
xoo 3 l w
oxo 1 l w
oxo 2 w l
oxo 3 l w
oox 1 l w
oox 2 l w
oox 3 w l
---------------------------------------------------
3w,6l 6w,3l
w = 1/3 w = 2/3

Remember -- the host KNOWS where the prize is, and you KNOW that he
will show you an empty door. So, which door he shows you is irrelevant.
The only variables of the problem are what door the prize is actually
behind, what door you pick, and whether you stay or switch. The door
he opens is irrelevant since you know it'll be empty.

--
Rich Carreiro
rlc...@animato.network23.com
uunet.uu.net!animato!rlcarr

Tim Smith

unread,
Nov 25, 1993, 9:55:43 PM11/25/93
to
bill nelson <bi...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> wrote:
>Your analysis is the intuitive solution, and is wrong.
>It is a bit tricky to understand.

It's not at all tricky to understand. A switcher wins iff his initial
choice was an empty door. This happens 2/3 of the time. A non-switcher
wins iff his initial choice was the door with the prize. This happens
1/3 of the time. This assumes that Monty always shows an empty door.

--Tim Smith

bill nelson

unread,
Nov 26, 1993, 9:09:02 PM11/26/93
to
t...@stein3.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

Well, neither you or I have any problem understanding this. However, given
the number of people who don't, I think that my statement is backed by ample
evidence.

Bill

CP Stokley

unread,
Nov 24, 1993, 10:50:07 AM11/24/93
to
I'm begging here - take rec.arts.startrek.misc out of the distribution
for this thread!
CP Stokley
csto...@mason1.gmu.edu

Joseph Bayes

unread,
Nov 29, 1993, 12:05:03 PM11/29/93
to
In article <EJH.93No...@larry.gsfc.nasa.gov> e...@larry.gsfc.nasa.gov (Edward Hartnett) writes:

>No, you are wrong because you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I
>am not talking about his overall odds based on switching or staying
>with his choice. I'm saying that for his second choice he is offered
>two doors, one with a prize. Therefor he has a 1 in two chance of
>selecting the right door on that choice.

And, if he makes his selection completely randomly, then he _does_
have a 1/2 chance. However, he has more information with which to make
his choice: he knows that the one he picked initially has a 1/3 chance
of being the right one. This doesn't change: if he did this 1,000
times, and didn't switch, he would win 1/3 of the time. However, he
also knows that the chance of the winning one being one of the two is
1/1. Therefore, the chance of the winning one being the one he
_didn't_ pick initially is 2/3.

This confused me too for a while. It helps to realize that the
host/whatever is using extra information by selecting one of the ones
which is wrong out of the ones you didn't select.

hth. I probably didn't convince you, but it took a while for me too.

And what the hell is this doing on a.s.b?

--joe
--
--
/-------------------------------------------------------------------\
/ jba...@cs.oberlin.edu \
\ "recursive: adj; see recursive" /
\----------------------[I have Thumbs of Thunder]-------------------/


Ashtoreth

unread,
Nov 29, 1993, 10:39:12 PM11/29/93
to
In article <JBAYES.93N...@abc.cs.oberlin.edu> jba...@cs.oberlin.edu (Joseph Bayes) writes:
>In article <EJH.93No...@larry.gsfc.nasa.gov> e...@larry.gsfc.nasa.gov (Edward Hartnett) writes:
>
>>No, you are wrong because you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I
>>am not talking about his overall odds based on switching or staying
>>with his choice. I'm saying that for his second choice he is offered
>>two doors, one with a prize. Therefor he has a 1 in two chance of
>>selecting the right door on that choice.
>
>And, if he makes his selection completely randomly, then he _does_
>have a 1/2 chance. However, he has more information with which to make
>his choice: he knows that the one he picked initially has a 1/3 chance
>of being the right one. This doesn't change: if he did this 1,000
>times, and didn't switch, he would win 1/3 of the time. However, he
>also knows that the chance of the winning one being one of the two is
>1/1. Therefore, the chance of the winning one being the one he
>_didn't_ pick initially is 2/3.

No! Stop it! STOP IT! My roommates and I argued about this problem
for days, and we *still* don't agree. And now I see it on a.s.b of
all places? Take this thing away!

--Ashtoreth
--
Ashtoreth (Ashy): fur that won't quit/foxes/5essential Chuck _ _ _.'._ _ _
Taylors/Volkoff cup/BIG UGLY CARS/"you must make a friend of '-.<o> .-`
horror"/malachite/hitler+elvis+jinx=comedy/"eet's so BEEG!"/ .'-' `-`.
ah yeaah three/in the mind/steel springs beneath velvet/foxy A O C
============================================================================
"Tor think missile good... bring me potato sandwich with mush on top."

CP Stokley

unread,
Dec 1, 1993, 4:54:20 PM12/1/93
to
To what god(desse)s do I have to sacrifice to get this out of
rec.arts.startrek.misc?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CP Stokley
csto...@mason1.gmu.edu

Andrew M. Bates

unread,
Dec 6, 1993, 2:07:25 PM12/6/93
to
In article <ashyCHA...@netcom.com> as...@netcom.com (Ashtoreth) writes:
>In article <JBAYES.93N...@abc.cs.oberlin.edu> jba...@cs.oberlin.edu (Joseph Bayes) writes:
>>In article <EJH.93No...@larry.gsfc.nasa.gov> e...@larry.gsfc.nasa.gov (Edward Hartnett) writes:
>>
>>>No, you are wrong because you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I
>>>am not talking about his overall odds based on switching or staying
>>>with his choice. I'm saying that for his second choice he is offered
>>>two doors, one with a prize. Therefor he has a 1 in two chance of
>>>selecting the right door on that choice.
>>
>>And, if he makes his selection completely randomly, then he _does_
>>have a 1/2 chance. However, he has more information with which to make
>>his choice: he knows that the one he picked initially has a 1/3 chance
>>of being the right one. This doesn't change: if he did this 1,000
>>times, and didn't switch, he would win 1/3 of the time. However, he
>>also knows that the chance of the winning one being one of the two is
>>1/1. Therefore, the chance of the winning one being the one he
>>_didn't_ pick initially is 2/3.
>
>No! Stop it! STOP IT! My roommates and I argued about this problem
>for days, and we *still* don't agree. And now I see it on a.s.b of
>all places? Take this thing away!

As much as I hate to followup on something which is crossposted as recklessly
as this is, I thought I'd make a clarification for everyone who, by accident
or on purpose, has followed this thread.

Try this on for size: 100 doors, Churchill (or whoever) picks one. Chances
he picked correctly: 1/100. Monty (or whoever) opens 98 wrong doors. Now,
the chances that the original one picked was correct are still 1/100, but
now, if ANY of the other 99 doors had the car (or whatever), the ONE that
remains closed has it. So there is a 99% chance that the closed door has
the car.

So you should switch.


Andy Bates.


--
Andy Bates Internet: ba...@cs.ucsb.edu
Graduate Student, lightacandlelightamotivestepdownstepdownwatchingheel
University of California, Santa Barbara crushcrushuhohthismeansnofearcavalier

Ashtoreth

unread,
Dec 6, 1993, 7:33:42 PM12/6/93
to
In article <2dvvte$t...@hub.ucsb.edu> ba...@bird.ucsb.edu (Andrew M. Bates) writes:
>Try this on for size: 100 doors, Churchill (or whoever) picks one. Chances
>he picked correctly: 1/100. Monty (or whoever) opens 98 wrong doors. Now,
>the chances that the original one picked was correct are still 1/100, but
>now, if ANY of the other 99 doors had the car (or whatever), the ONE that
>remains closed has it. So there is a 99% chance that the closed door has
>the car.
>
>So you should switch.

Can you explain to me why both doors don't have a 1/2 chance of winning?
There are two doors to choose from at this point. For whatever reason,
Churchill is picking this one door. It might have the car, or the one of
the other 99 doors not opened may have it. There are two unopened doors.
Either one may have the car. Why do the odds change for the doors not
picked, but not the one Churchill originally picked? If the actual status
of any of the doors hasn't changed, what's the difference between Churchill's
door and any other unopened door? Am I missing some part of this problem?

Jim Balter

unread,
Dec 7, 1993, 12:06:29 AM12/7/93
to
In article <ashyCHn...@netcom.com> as...@netcom.com (Ashtoreth) writes:
>Can you explain to me why both doors don't have a 1/2 chance of winning?
>There are two doors to choose from at this point. For whatever reason,
>Churchill is picking this one door. It might have the car, or the one of
>the other 99 doors not opened may have it. There are two unopened doors.
>Either one may have the car. Why do the odds change for the doors not
>picked, but not the one Churchill originally picked? If the actual status
>of any of the doors hasn't changed, what's the difference between Churchill's
>door and any other unopened door? Am I missing some part of this problem?

What's status got to do with it? A door doesn't have p=1/3 that it has a car
behind it because it has a third of a car behind it, it's because it is one
door out of three equivalent doors. You've heard of sample sets? That's what
these probability problems are all about. The set of original doors isn't the
only set involved; there is also the set of all doors other than yours, and
the probability for any door among that set changes as the size of that set
changes. Since your door isn't in that set, its probability doesn't change.
The odds for the doors not picked change because they are among a set that
Monty is eliminating from. Each time he opens a door, he is failing to open
the other doors; the failure of Monty to open a door that he might have opened
increases the odds that it has a car behind it (remember, Monty knows where
the car is; he opened the door he did *for a reason*). Changing the sample
set size from n to n-1 multiplies the odds for the remaining doors by n/(n-1).

Consider this scenario: There are 2 sets of 2 doors, with one car per set.
You select a door from set 1. Monty lets you switch your door with either
door from set 2. There's no point in switching, because the odds are 1/2 for
all 4 doors. Now, Monty opens a door from set 2, revealing a goat, and
allows you to switch your door (from set 1) with the remaining door from set
2. Obviously you should, because the odds for your door are still 1/2 but the
odds for the door from set 2 is = 1/1. Monty, by reducing the number of doors
from 2 to 1 has multiplied the odds for the remaining door by 2/1: 1/2 -> 1.
Similarly, in the original problem, reducing the number of doors from 2 to 1
multiplies the odds by 2/1: 1/3 -> 2/3. This works in general: suppose you
have a deck of 52 cards; set aside half. The odds that a card picked randomly
from the remaining 26 cards is the Ace of Spades is 1/52. Now have a friend
remove any card other than the AofS from your 26 cards. The odds that a card
picked from the remaining 25 is the AofS is 1/52*26/25 = 1/50. Repeat, and
the odds is 1/50*25/24 = 1/48 among 24 cards, etc. down to the odds being 1/2
with one card left. The other p=1/2 is of course for the half of the cards set
aside originally; the odds that any one of the those cards is the AofS is
1/2*1/26 = 1/52, as always, because your friend's selections weren't from
among those cards, whereas the odds of your remaining card being the AofS
increased with each selection. This should all be quite obvious.

Many people who have trouble with the Monty problem say "But there are two
doors and either can have the car behind them, so the odds are 50:50." But
this is a blatantly circular argument. Two outcomes are equally likely only
if they are equally likely. The mere fact that they are both doors or that
they both may have cars behind them or any other such similarity does *not*
make them equally likely to have cars behind them. This is the Zippy approach
to probability: talking the language, but no real understanding of what it's
all about.

Rather than clogging the net with traffic, anyone who doesn't immediately
see that the odds are stay:1/3 switch:2/3 should avoid discussing it
until they have gotten their intuition rewired, perhaps by getting and reading
a good textbook on conditional probability, or taking a course on the subject.
--
<J Q B>

Ashtoreth

unread,
Dec 7, 1993, 1:09:35 AM12/7/93
to
In article <jqbCHn...@netcom.com> j...@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>You've heard of sample sets?

Duhh, no. Gee, I'm sorry for being such a stupid fuckup. I guess I'll go
shoot myself for not possessing this everyday bit of knowledge.

Perhaps this is why I asked someone to *explain*.

>Many people who have trouble with the Monty problem say "But there are two
>doors and either can have the car behind them, so the odds are 50:50." But
>this is a blatantly circular argument. Two outcomes are equally likely only
>if they are equally likely. The mere fact that they are both doors or that
>they both may have cars behind them or any other such similarity does *not*
>make them equally likely to have cars behind them. This is the Zippy approach
>to probability: talking the language, but no real understanding of what it's
>all about.

I can see that shooting myself isn't enough; I'd better castrate myself
so that my obviously inferior sperm doesn't take root and create freakish
bastards with no desire to learn about probability.

Or maybe I just don't spend enough time at the track. :)

>Rather than clogging the net with traffic, anyone who doesn't immediately
>see that the odds are stay:1/3 switch:2/3 should avoid discussing it
>until they have gotten their intuition rewired, perhaps by getting and reading
>a good textbook on conditional probability, or taking a course on the subject.

I'm sorry. Forgive me for asking an honest question on an information
network. How could I be so thoughtless?

--Ashy. :)

Oh, and before you say it, I didn't start this thread, and I have no idea
which of the above groups it's most appropriate for.

Xiphias Gladius

unread,
Dec 7, 1993, 1:20:44 AM12/7/93
to
as...@netcom.com (Ashtoreth) writes:

>In article <2dvvte$t...@hub.ucsb.edu> ba...@bird.ucsb.edu (Andrew M. Bates) writes:
>>Try this on for size: 100 doors, Churchill (or whoever) picks one. Chances
>>he picked correctly: 1/100. Monty (or whoever) opens 98 wrong doors. Now,
>>the chances that the original one picked was correct are still 1/100, but
>>now, if ANY of the other 99 doors had the car (or whatever), the ONE that
>>remains closed has it. So there is a 99% chance that the closed door has
>>the car.
>>
>>So you should switch.

>Can you explain to me why both doors don't have a 1/2 chance of winning?
>There are two doors to choose from at this point. For whatever reason,
>Churchill is picking this one door. It might have the car, or the one of
>the other 99 doors not opened may have it. There are two unopened doors.
>Either one may have the car. Why do the odds change for the doors not
>picked, but not the one Churchill originally picked? If the actual status
>of any of the doors hasn't changed, what's the difference between Churchill's
>door and any other unopened door? Am I missing some part of this problem?

Yes. Monty Hall actually KNOWS which door has the car, and won't open
that door. It's not random chance that the car hasn't show up -- the
car will NOT show up.

Isn't the purpose of a FAQ to deal with perrenial questions? This is
turning into a frequently asked question. I think it should go into
the asb FAQ.

Whatdd'ya say, Rob?

:)

- Ian

Jim Balter

unread,
Dec 7, 1993, 5:14:36 AM12/7/93
to
In article <ashyCHn...@netcom.com>, Ashtoreth <as...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <jqbCHn...@netcom.com> j...@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>>You've heard of sample sets?
>
>Duhh, no. Gee, I'm sorry for being such a stupid fuckup. I guess I'll go
>shoot myself for not possessing this everyday bit of knowledge.

Your self-deprecation seems to be a response to some sort of criticism that
I didn't intend. Perhaps some assertion training would buck up your apparently
weak ego. You probably haven't heard of sample sets because I meant to say
sample spaces; my brain took a left turn because the space in this case
is a set of discrete outcomes. But your response seems out of whack relative
to my rather dry discussion. Perhaps you should read some of the net comments
or even recently published studies warning against reading too much emotional
content into net postings.

>Perhaps this is why I asked someone to *explain*.

And I did. A simple thank you for the time I took would suffice.

>>Many people who have trouble with the Monty problem say "But there are two
>>doors and either can have the car behind them, so the odds are 50:50." But
>>this is a blatantly circular argument. Two outcomes are equally likely only
>>if they are equally likely. The mere fact that they are both doors or that
>>they both may have cars behind them or any other such similarity does *not*
>>make them equally likely to have cars behind them. This is the Zippy approach
>>to probability: talking the language, but no real understanding of what it's
>>all about.
>
>I can see that shooting myself isn't enough; I'd better castrate myself
>so that my obviously inferior sperm doesn't take root and create freakish
>bastards with no desire to learn about probability.

Excuse me, but I tried to make clear why your intuition is invalid and
misaddressed. You could take advantage of it instead of being so damn
defensive. If you desire to learn about probability, fine, go do it.
If you don't, fine, but then why the fuck are you here? Or do you want to
discuss the Monty problem without knowing anything about probability?
Sorry, no go. Like I said, that's Zippyland.

>>Rather than clogging the net with traffic, anyone who doesn't immediately
>>see that the odds are stay:1/3 switch:2/3 should avoid discussing it
>>until they have gotten their intuition rewired, perhaps by getting and reading
>>a good textbook on conditional probability, or taking a course on the subject.
>
>I'm sorry. Forgive me for asking an honest question on an information
>network. How could I be so thoughtless?

Look, there have been dozens of postings on this subject, many simply saying
"no, you're wrong, there's no reason to switch", not to mention (well, ok, I
am mentioning it) hundreds of pages of discussion in Parade and Skeptical
Inquirer and thousands of hallway discussions all over the world. The subject
is getting very old. There have been long detailed explanations here giving
many different ways to look at the problem. Despite that, I gave as clear and
detailed a response to your specific question ("Why do the odds change for one
door but not the other?"). How could you be such an ungrateful fuck? (If you
are put off by what you may consider "a somewhat superior attitude" on my part,
well, welcome to the world of net personality, fuckhead. I'm really a warm
guy in person, but my fingers have a mind of their own.)
If that isn't enough, if you still don't get it, that's ok, it doesn't make
you an inferior person no matter how much you may want to be seen that way,
but I gave you some powerful advice and it's sad that you dismiss it. It is
possible to establish an intuition about these problems and to excise the
inaccurate intuition that similar looking cases are equally likely or that
opening doors "doesn't change anything". If you don't care to change, fine,
but at least understand that your intuition is invalid and that "what [you
are] missing" is that you don't understand the subject sufficiently and thus
your intuition about the odds is not to be trusted. Studying the subject
sufficiently to establish such an intuition is the best path to answering your
question. *That* is information. Sorry if you don't like it.


For yet one more demonstration of the appropriateness of switching: Choose a
door. Then, write down on a piece of paper whether you would prefer to
exchange your door for the better of the two remaining doors. Obviously you
would prefer two chances over one. Then, Monty shows you a door with no
car behind it. Then he asks you whether you want to switch to the remaining
door. Hand him the piece of paper.
--
<J Q B>

Tim Smith

unread,
Dec 7, 1993, 3:57:22 AM12/7/93
to
In article <ashyCHn...@netcom.com>, Ashtoreth <as...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Can you explain to me why both doors don't have a 1/2 chance of winning?
>There are two doors to choose from at this point.

What are the chances that Rush Limbaugh will tell an urban legend about
Douglas Hofstader and Lt. Worf getting super glued to Margret Thatcher's
nipple clamps on tomorrow's show? There are two possibilities: he will
or he will not. Thus, the chances are 1/2.

When you see why this is wrong, you will know the answer to the door
question.o

--Tim Smith

Xiphias Gladius

unread,
Dec 7, 1993, 11:37:47 AM12/7/93
to
as...@netcom.com (Ashtoreth) writes:

>In article <jqbCHn...@netcom.com> j...@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>>You've heard of sample sets?

>Duhh, no. Gee, I'm sorry for being such a stupid fuckup. I guess I'll go
>shoot myself for not possessing this everyday bit of knowledge.

>Perhaps this is why I asked someone to *explain*.

Ummm . . . I've been doing most of the explaining on alt.sex.bondage,
and *I've* never heard of sample sets.


>>Rather than clogging the net with traffic, anyone who doesn't
>>immediately see that the odds are stay:1/3 switch:2/3 should avoid
>>discussing it until they have gotten their intuition rewired,
>>perhaps by getting and reading a good textbook on conditional
>>probability, or taking a course on the subject.

Or by doing what I did -- talking to somebody who actually *can*
explain the problem to you, and then trying to come up with a
comprehensible way to explain it.

>I'm sorry. Forgive me for asking an honest question on an information
>network. How could I be so thoughtless?

'Sokay. Don't worry about it.

Okay. I'll write a file with MY explanation of this thing, which is a
little more understandable than the one just posted. If you're
interested, e-mail me.

- Ian

Ashtoreth

unread,
Dec 7, 1993, 9:00:04 PM12/7/93
to
In article <jqbCHn...@netcom.com> j...@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>[not worth repeating]

You really need to relax.

--Ashtoreth

Nicolas Gloy

unread,
Dec 8, 1993, 1:49:43 AM12/8/93
to
In article <ashyCHp...@netcom.com> as...@netcom.com (Ashtoreth) writes:
In article <jqbCHn...@netcom.com> j...@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>[not worth repeating]

You really need to relax.


Shit, is this never going to stop ??

I replied to this thread about a month ago (I was wrong BTW, and am
deeply ashamed of myself) and didn't quite understand why people were
so upset about it...

Are there any statistics about the most frequently used words in
killfiles around the world ?

n
ic
k
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Gloy | when in trouble or in doubt,
nick...@das.harvard.edu | run in circles, scream, and shout
------------------------------------------------------------------

Gary Rosys

unread,
Dec 8, 1993, 12:21:23 PM12/8/93
to
nick...@sauvignon.harvard.edu (Nicolas Gloy) writes:

>Are there any statistics about the most frequently used words in
>killfiles around the world ?

Probably and they probably include Monty, Monte, Marilyn vo
Savant, and the person who started this thread, but they don't **yet**
include Winston Churchill Fantasies.


--
grace, peace and love, Hamilton Continental Hockey 5-0
gary Take that Williams you old
ro...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu Purple Cows, you!!!

0 new messages