Talk:Monty Hall problem

Misplaced post from 2011

Note: While cleaning up an abandoned draft RfC from 2011 and old comment was rediscovered that never made it to this talk page. The IP who posted this was later blocked indefinitely over an unrelated issue and cannot respond, but here -- fifteen years late -- is that comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

---

• My understanding is that the "Monty Hall Problem", as presented by Marylin vos Savant, (and I believe the earlier formulation by Selvin as well) is a form of Bertrand's paradox, in which one reasonable interpretation of the problem is equivalent to the Bertrand's box paradox. These two levels of confusion give rise to unending quarrels, at least in part because some alternate interpretations of the Monty Hall problem give rise to the same solution (i.e., no advantage to switch) that arises from an incorrect resolution of the "Bertrand's Box" puzzle. My suggestion: find a source that explains this clearly, and organize the page based on that. (To my mind, the Cecil Adams "Straight Dope" column referenced in the article makes this reasonably clear. But there are probably other references that are even better.) Solutions and explanations of the "standard" interpretation could be minimal, as long as they are correct (as presented, Carlton's solution neglects to make any reference to the key assumptions that characterize the "standard" interpretation), and as long as the explanations at Three Prisoners problem and Bertrand's Box are already sufficiently clear. (I haven't read the former, but the latter looks fine to me.) I don't know whether or not this would resolve the dispute in question. If nothing else, though, it may make it clear to both readers and editors that one should not simply assume that one interpretation or the other is correct or obvious. By doing so it might reduce some contentious edits. 139.99.16.28 (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice of you to dig this up. I think the current mentions of Bertrand's paradox are sufficient, and the MHP already has ample secondary sources (arguably more than Bertrand's paradox), that reorganization is not appropriate. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

That's the problem with 15-year-old suggestions from a time when everyone was going nuts over this. Many times the problem the suggestion is addressing no longer exists. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2026 (UTC)