General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Should Democratic Underground switch to seven-person juries? [View all]defacto7
(13,485 posts)But it contradicts itself. The first part discusses their probability argument, then it goes to the gamblers folly argument which contradicts the very argument in the first part.
This is an exercise in separating the human propensity to see pattern in chaos, but the actual logic fails. The math itself fails by inserting the "set" analysis. When three doors are available 1 in 3 is the probability of a hit. If you add sets to the analysis, you are taking the side of the gabler when the probability is still 1 in 3. When you remove a door in the possible choices for a hit, the equation changes to a completely new problem, it becomes 50/50 similar to the gamblers inability to see the odds are the same as always no matter how many rolls/spins whatever.
The trick in this conundrum is mixing math and arithmetic. This problem is arithmetic... not math. Arithmetic has limits to its logic where math does not, therefore going beyond the bounds of simple arithmetic makes for a profound argument but does not address the simple arithmetic that it takes to solve the contestant's "real" issue at hand.
It's a fun argument though.