Xittenn

Yes, there are a lot of countries that are supportive of trans persons. When I had my surgery I met the sweetest young trans man from Australia. I hear in Brazil, and the Philippines trans persons are fairly well accepted. And obviously Thailand which is probably the most developed nation in terms of trans people, their rights and their rearing! One where I know someone will be around to say hi to me regularly and give me a hug, maybe snuggle every now and again. I feel so alone all the time, it would be nice to have a companion.

Is there any reason why I should not go with the AMD Radeon™ HD 7970 Graphics? I mean it's a popping 970GFlops DP, which I think satisfies my needs and then some. Just curious is all . . . . .

I think the one thing missed in this thread is time. Most large men do not start off that way. Taller men often start off quite lanky. I've worked with big guys my whole life and I've watched many of the men in my family develop over time. I come from a family where many of us, both men and women, are over six feet. That said their girth was something that they gained gradually and their ability to work excessively long hours under great stress was gained over time. My father is 6'1" and weighs ~275lbs. He was a medium build teenager but grew over the years as he carried around his 200lb toolbox and lifted around heavy steel components for machines. I have known a lot of shorter men who have over the years become quite thick, and their hands are often double the size of mine even though I'm a few inches taller. This came from working hard and was also something they had developed in time. Women are also no different. Given that a women works really hard they often become equally dense in their structure. And although still slightly less so to their male counterparts, in comparison to others who do not stress themselves under physical conditions they are often physically stronger, faster, and more durable. My aunts who live further north are quite strong women who do labour that most city men would balk at.

Yeah thanks for the code cretin, something to play with. I'll most definitely have to take a coarse on statistics in the fall! And no worries Schrödinger, I get a little crazy sometimes. My thoughts have never been trained and or fully developed so I often fall apart and wonder off into unusual places--it just sucks when it happens in front of people and during exams! More so exams . . . .

I was observing it as the number of doors increases indefinitely . . . I actually believe the probability boost gained from this trick decreases as you increase the number of doors renormalizing on 1/2. I could be wrong, but I have found a few papers that sort of suggested this. I think I'm having a nervous breakdown right now, I'm not sure because I can't feel my face and I'm crying in the library again. So with regards to my clarity and whether or not I'm sober, I might be kind of messed up in a sense . . . . I swear I tried to step back and I couldn't as always . . .

Sounds good to me, thanks for clarifying that!

I don't see where I am profusely contesting anything other than the fact that the idea is not well founded in a mathematical sense. Empirically correct or otherwise the content of your posts have little meaning to me and I don't feel compelled to accept the facts presented as such. I've tried at numerous points to point at ideas that I feel require further clarification under the conditions presented. I really don't know why you guys are so concerned with my standpoint if we ignore me at this point I believe the definitive answer to the question posted by the OP is that there is in fact no controversy. I vote this down, in a democracy my single vote would be meaningless. Is there a reason why others feel that I need to come along before the conclusion can be made otherwise? I simply gave my opinions, as it stands I feel that the conclusion and the empirical evidence are rooted in statements that are not quite as presented and that require deeper reflection. Statistics takes on a very formal structure and if there wasn't something questionable about the statement no one would have cared about the preposition otherwise. The preposition for me is very intuitive, questioning it is what is counter-intuitive.

It was the only one that I could find of its kind, and I think you know what motivates me in my terms which is why you posted it. When the Monty Hall Problem was first postulated for me in the movie 21 back a few years ago I thought it was the greatest thing since American cheddar whipped cheese. And then I forgot about it because I am not really into gambling. So I guess what everyone is saying is the answer to the question is it isn't? I'm saying it needs a more introspective look. I don't think the question I posed to the Hat can be answered logically by any of the posters and I am not comfortable with my own conclusions so I remain in the area of I don't know what the hell this is saying exactly. The word problems posted have clearly stated their point from the beginning, the fact that anyone would think I don't have the common sense to grasp the concept, from my POV doesn't fully understand the concept themselves. When I have a firm grounding on the problem I will change my conclusion, and until then there is controversy for me. Until I can clearly trace the pathways and interactions I stand where I stand. There are insufficient resources explaining in mathematical terms how this works out numerical on all levels. This suggests to me that from a mathematical perspective there is something that doesn't sit well. Reiterating the problem in a variety of wordings without being able to manipulate the numbers beyond the obvious is just thinking games. Gill, Richard D. "The Monty Hall problem is not a probability puzzle* (It's a challenge in mathematical modeling)." Statistica Neerlandica, 65/1. (2011)

"Why is the Monty Hall Problem so controversial?" <== title of thread; answer, it is not proofed! I can not handle this mathematically in a sensible fashion and so it remains wrong, even after I wake up .. . . . . otherwise the title of the thread would be "Why the Monty Hall Problem makes life so awesome in that it explains stuff and is so not controversial at all?" I'm not sure what your word choice is saying in this variation . . Can I have your code cretin? I want to watch it but I am too lazy to write the ten lines myself! So if I do this 1,000,000 times what is my probability is it 1/2, 1/3, 999,999/1,000,000 ??? Why or why not? How can we calculate this? Can someone write a test for this one as well?

If the car is never removed, and there is a goat and a car, then there is a 50/50 chance of the door that you are holding being a goat. I'm sorry the idea is bunk and I have a real maths exam tomorrow . . . night ! ** there's an ignore button?? this is news?? everybody ignore me now, I feel an idea is bs and I argued about it profusely without showing proof--wait I did actually show proof ** ** I'm getting an A, I'm winning!

I'm sorry but wiki is not a means of backing this statement up, show me a source of reputable mathematics where this conclusion has been made. Taking pot shots at my etiquette doesn't add to the strength of the argument either. Roll your eyes elsewhere! Also the inability of others to understand me doesn't constitute a vague disquiet, it constitutes a failure to communicate.

Very interesting observations my good man!

I may not have been clear on how I managed to come to my conclusions but I was very clear about my position, the odds remain the same. Switching does not affect the outcome. I am very sober and I am probably the most sober person you know, I even quite drinking coffee and caffeinated beverages. I'm quite alright, people see big fancy statements they don't see what is plain in front of them and fancy statements I have none.

That would be kind of fun!

Precisely! I might be mucking around a bit yes! But this was what I was getting at when I said "No probabilities form positive interferences with itself PLACE BIG DOT HERE" I think I hit on a deeper thought but honestly I couldn't make it any clearer if I tried!

This is like the infinite improbability drive. And there are no proofs!

Is an illusion that doesn't hold true, for the reasons already given. A mirage, is a mirage, is a mirage . . .

more added notes which I might continue to do now that I've been sucked into the pit of doom . . . . I'm saying that by picking one of a goat, a goat, or a car, without knowing which is which of coarse, x is thereby picking into a pair that is bound--I can do this because you started it and if we are playing that game then I remain on equal grounds whether you like it or not. So now that I have picked an item such that I am bound by two groups I am either bound to two successful or to only one successful in having a car. By eliminating the second goat we actually create this bound state that you are all so adamantly protecting because you all wish it were true. So again you are either in group 'I was bound by the car twice', or group 'I was bound by the car and the sucker prize.' The unbound real chance still remains 1/3 chance of having chosen the right item, and you must now choose whether to stay or to switch. If you switch there is a 50/50 chance that you could now be in the 1/3 group and all items had a 1/3 chance so being that only a goat is removed--which could be a 2/3 or a 1/3 we don't even know unless of course someone tells you it is a specific way in some half assed paradox--then all bets remain on your final decision which is 50/50. Even if you compound this by combinatorics you are still stuck with an equal chance of sucking no matter how bad you wish it wasn't so. No probabilities form positive interferences with itself PLACE BIG DOT HERE Wiki is a cesspool of stuff that remunerates underneath city streets! Also there is NO MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATION anywhere, wiki or not!

This is a trivialization . .. if I am in one of three groups there is a 2/3 chance that I have chosen a group that has both a car and a goat. If the second goat is destroyed either I beat the odds and am in the group that had a 2/3 chance or I am in the group that has a 1/3 chance not the other way round. If I then make a choice between two options I have a 50/50 . . . . and will remain so in my mind until I see a mathematical proof! And not a 2/3 chance of winning the car, but a 2/3 chance of either having picked the car or of being in the group that the car is in . . . where the one third you picked the double goat!

State something mathematical! Although this theorem has an entry on wolfram it doesn't really do anything but state the problem in a rather meaningless way. If tested the idea would fail and under mathematical scrutiny it looks like goo IMO. I negated a bad idea, sorry Jo. I would have talked about it but it's hard to get my points across and I'm very busy with studies. Give me numbers and back it up, show me the money!