>>10374442If after having it "explained to you" you accept it uncritically because it came from an authority and the math worked out, you might be the retard. This is why enlightenment science based purely on math and not observation, experiment and copious evidence was a mistake. Anybody can come up with a retarded equation to make unverifiable claims. It's the ultimate in Jewish Science.
>if the probability that the box has two like coins changes to 1/2 no matter what kind of coin is shown, the probability would have to be 1/2 even if you hadn't observed a coin this way. This is just flat out wrong.
>Since we know this probability is 2/3, not 1/2, we have an apparent paradox.There is no paradox unless you accept that the conditions are static and therefore the probabilities didn't change after you opened the box. This is absolutely not the case. Changes in conditions change the probabilities. Your probability is no longer 1/3. It doesn't matter what came before.
>The three remaining possibilities are equally likelyThere are not three remaining possibilities though, there are only two. If I draw one G from either box, I eliminate two out of four possible outcomes: either G1 from GG and G from GS, OR G2 from GG and G from GS: whether the G I drew was G1 or G2 in GG is irrelevant. there are only two remaining outcomes, and what came before doesn't matter.
Again, if I deal A,A and 5,6, the odds on the A,A winning before the flop are 4/5. If I deal 7,8,A on the flop, Odds on the A,A go down to 3/5. If the next card I expose is a 4, A,A goes down to 1/5, it doesn't matter what the probability was before the flop, what matters is the probability right now. Once you have exposed one gold, you have changed the probabilities.
