Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
From a logical point of view, yes, but in reality, it's not like that, and the decision needs to be changed. Let's say there are three doors - 1, 2, and 3. A car is behind the first door. If we initially chose the first door, then to win, we don't need to change our decision. If we chose the second door, then we need to change our decision. If we chose the third door, then we need to change our decision.
Therefore, in two cases, we need to change our decision, and in one case, we don't, so the chances of winning by changing the door are 2/3.
I disagree with this, and strongly so. We chose the first door. We don't know what's behind it. One of the three doors was opened, and there's nothing there, so the car is behind one of the TWO remaining doors. Therefore, the chance is not 2/3, but 1/2.
Умирает не тот, кто устал, а тот, кто остановился.