Also, what probability is measuring is exactly the proportion of times you get it right in a series, so saying it doesn't apply to single experiments seems to be a misunderstanding of what probability is. I'm also curious as to how, in your view, nature determines whether you are doing a single iteration or a series. You say that your probability of winning in a single experiment is 1/2 but seem to conclude that switching does indeed yield 2/3 probability of winning in repeated experiments. What about if you just do the game twice - what then?

]]>The math & logic here show a mistake about the nature of time that is very typical in logico-mathematic thought. The chooser in the Monty Hall problem cannot benefit from the difference between the 1/3 and 2/3 probability choices. That chooser is either right or wrong & that difference cannot help them as an individual because THEY ONLY GET ONE CHANCE -- not the SERIES of chances that would be necessary for them individually to profit from an increase in probability. Unlike the mechanically-minded logician thinking in the world of dead abstractions (in other words a 'Platonist'), these choosers are not living in cloud-cukoo land where one can role back time & choose again. The increase in probability would only be beneficial in a SERIES of chances or in a SERIES of choosers considered BY THE LOGICIAN as a whole unit (only by the logician, since the contestants cannot organize ahead of time; theoretically they could form a group by agreement afterwards & offer to share equally with a certain number of other contestants but why would winners join in that? Perhaps among the Hopi or any other integrated group.) Running a computer program or any other multiplying-choices program does not touch the REALITY of the individual chooser's situation: they only get one chance, not a series. If the 2/3 probability door is chosen, it can be wrong; if the 1/3 probability door is chosen, it can be wrong. If they change, they can be wrong; if they don't change, they can be wrong. They are not a series. Their ACTUAL, not imaginary 'Platonic' cloud-cukoo-land probability, is 50:50. The 1/3 probability that is removed from the opened door ACTUALLY, NON-SERIALLY, in the real world of the INDIVIDUAL contestant, migrates equally to both of the unopened doors, the right & the wrong alike -- their ONE TIME CHANCE is 50:50, and in the real world they only have one time, just like you & me.

Mitch's CONCLUSION is right: '; 'flip a coin, it doesn't matter,' i.e., it's 50:50 either way FOR ONE CHANCE, & so is Dr. Sharma's conclusion (I don't bother with his math). Addendum 2 by Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at the University of California, Riverside, John de Pillis (who seems to be an interesting guy otherwise), refers to a graphic "proof" where the bottom line summing up the effects of the 3 possible choices is what DOES NOT HAPPEN IN REALITY, only in the imagining mind of the mathematician. You only get to choose between two at the end; your chances are 50:50 as Dr. Sharma says.

Now please explain to me why so many brilliantly mathematical people with much higher IQs than mine have gotten it wrong again & again. A confusion between ACTUAL TIME & analytic intellectual imaginary-no-time-mathematics. (I'm going to check Dr. de Pillis on Zeno, another out-of-this world nut.) I never understood those explanations but did not become crystal clear until I started writing this. Ain't writing grand! As Jed McKenna said, "A mind is a terrible place to think in" (or something like that). And then there is the community-mind aspect! I await responses with some eagerness & (possibly) irrationally hopeful expectations. ]]>

i have broken pin on my motherboard . By your map i figure out that it is a Vttd power pin . Anyway my pc still open and work normal but is there a chance to get an error in the near future and if yes what can i do to prevent this from happen?

Thanks in advance ]]>

Dog Lover’s Magazine

To conclude, from the time I saw the term “Hartree-Fock self-consistent solution” I was convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend to look it up. (Note to the editor: Thank you for your convincing comments. Please delete my first six paragraphs.)

P.S.: If I had written Michael Kelly’s review of Reviews of This Book, it would have ended on a different word. “Abdomen” belongs somewhere in the middle, though things that end in abdomen may come at the end. At the end of Richard Herley’s review, or rather in “A partial commentary on Richard Herley's review, by himself,” he, Richard Herley perhaps, writes that James Joyce is “…cleverer than Heisenberg and Escher put together.” Actually, Joyce is cleverer than Heisenberg, Escher and Joyce put together, as I show in my first six paragraphs.

Reviews of This Book deals far too much with cats. After the high point of Kelly’s parable of the dog, my interest sagged. Later reviews referred only two times to the parable of the dog; three to five times, if you count this paragraph; or three to seven times, if you count my first six paragraphs. ]]>

I just submit this to thank you for your effort.

I'm also impressed by the work you have put in this very usefull color scheme.

And I'll also use it (privately) as people regularly give me broken mobos wich only have a few bent pins as a flaw.

So thank you very much!!

Best regards,

H.