Jeremiah

Statistics is a data science and uses repeated random events to make inference about an unknown distribution. We don't have repeated random events, we...

You don't know the distribution, you don't know the limits and you only get one chance to switch.

You only get one instance of the game. You don't get to open a 100+ envelopes.

Already commented on "strategy of switching". You are no longer talking about just probability anymore, since you can now sample the distribution you ...

Actually only one case is true, while the other one does not exist. So they can't both be possible outcomes, not objectively. Remember the envelopes a...

I don't really care about things you can't know. The 1.25X come from considering expected gains over both cases, the larger and smaller. However, when...

Do you get the point or not?

Never said anything about both being actual at once. Never meant that at all. Clearly that can't happen so I am not sure how you got that. You have to...

That is what I just did. The envelopes cannot be in both cases at once, therefore it makes no sense to hedge your expections that both cases are possi...

And I am saying that doesn't really matter because it will always be amount A and amount B.

See that was easy.

I have two envelopes, one with amount A and one with amount B. I flip a fair coin to choose one. What is my chance of getting B?

I think we are safe, I doubt anything will blow up.

It absolutely can be ignored.

It is a subjective modeling based on expections when viewing Y. It confounds the objective with the subjective. The random event that determined the c...

The filling of the envelopes and the selecting of the envelopes are two separate events.

Why don't you consider it from a categorical perceptive then. The OP never called for a solution based on expected gains.

Never said it was.

It has always been the same error, making assumptions based on Y. Seeing Y does not actually change the contents of the envelopes.

Yet you assume he is wrong?

You have not really proven he can't. You yourself are making your own assumptions when considering expected gain over the two possible cases. If a loa...

Consider this: Say I have an unfair coin, on average it flips H 9 out of 10 times. You don't know this; however, all you see is a coin and without kno...

The amount in the envelopes is already set, just like the coin was already flipped, the uncertainty we have been considering is subjective in nature.

There is no reason you can't look at the OP and consider it in a categorical case.

Your 50% applies to your uncertainty about the state of the coin. You flip a coin it has a 50% chance of T or H, after that lands that part is done. W...

The last thing that really needs to be addressed is this. @"andrewk" was correct that X needs to be defined, he was just wrong in how that needs to be...

The only control I have over you is what you allow me to have.

I find it interesting that you didn't pick up on what happened there.

Just following your lead.

Already did that. It was not that hard.

This is me on page six. You are grossly mistaken on this point, never once did I advocate the use of statistics for addressing the OP. I talked about ...

The solution has always been what I posted on the first page of this thread in post number 6, which has also been my stance this entire thread. A stat...

The limit does not need to be specified, as the envelopes will never step outside the limit. Mathematically you cannot determine if you have the the s...

For the math heads: I don't plan to host thread number seven, any time soon. I can only handle public forums for so long then I need a break. If @"Mic...

And yet you didn't read the posts, did you? Not then, maybe you read a few more after I pushed you. I may be an ass, but at least I read a thread befo...

True, but you will have no knowledge of what that may be.

Assuming your prior is correct, that is.

There is not enough information to calculate expected gain.

You people really need to drop this Classical v. Bayesian mind set many of you have. The idea that they are somehow different tool boxes is misleading...

I very specifically want to know why you need me to go first, when I asked for your thoughts.

Who is Richard Dawkins?

Is it just me or did @"raza" just admit he is poorly informed when it comes to our President?

Why you have to work through his history? Do you not stay informed about the President?

Would you say the same about other things we once did not know the nature of, such as disease, or neurology? I'm not sure if the nature of the invisib...

Yes, and it is also used on observational data sets to make generalized inferences about a population.

How could anyone who has read this thread possibly concluded I was ever advocating for a statistical solution. I have been very clear that a statistic...

So Sessions is all you have? You can't think of anything else at all?

... ou have been misinterpreting me since you joined the conversation. ...

It is telling how hard @"raza" has to work to find any faults at all with President Trump. My guess is that he has to run it though his supervisor bef...

So you are faulting his lack of action. Can you find fault in any of his actions?