TRIPLE MONKEY THEOREM, MONTY HALL PROBLEM, CLG METEOS | Doublelift Week 8 Co Stream Highlights
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 июл 2024
- ► / doublelift
Week 8 starts with the beautiful discussion of the infinite monkey theorem, the Monty Hall Problem, trying out Akshan first time with some weird bugs, and CLG wanting Meteos. It's the Week 8 LCS Co Stream highlights ft Meteos and Sneaky baby.
►Edited by kasinoz
/ kasinozz
►Music Provided by Monstercat
"What I've Waited For" by Vicetone
• Vicetone - What I've W...
►CREDIT IF USING STREAM VODS (one week old only)
/ doublelift
/ doublelift
/ doublelift1
/ doubleliftofficial
TIMESTAMP:
0:00 Podcast | The Triple Monkey Theorem
11:08 DIG vs TL | Yasuo Takes Stage
15:45 Podcast | The Monty Hall Problem
25:42 C9 vs 100T | The Fudge Factor
32:31 Gameplay | Akshan First Impressions
43:07 TSM vs EG | Contractz Subs for Svenskeren
49:15 TL vs FLY | Something Something Irelia
59:38 CLG vs GG | Meteos to CLG 
Игры
DL and Meteos at the beginning: the Dunning-Kruger effect is when the most stupid people are the most sure of themselves
Sneaky 10 minutes later: the Monty Hall problem is flat out wrong and I can prove it
Also Sneaky : Logic is not math/equations
omegalul
@@davidg7737 I like it when he goes "WDYM PROBABILITY THEORY ITS JUST LUCK". I snorted loudly.
lmao
Worst part is that problem is easy to prove, lol
@@SparkZ009 but i mean isnt that the problem with probability theory that its probability and not definity. Getting the higher percentage on picking right increases your chance of hitting but actually hitting it still is luck isnt it?
Ah yes, probability theory. Exactly what I am looking for in my LCS.
If NA does enough stupid shit, the rest of the world might suffer brain damage thus preventing them from going to worlds. NA world champs by default is the only option
Basic probability to basic game theory lmao
I'll take it.
Listening to sneaky sounded like that one sketch asking if a kilogram of steel or a kilogram of feathers are heavier
Not at all, cause Sneaky was actually right here. Like he said, it made sense to him if it was completely random inputs being generated infinitely, which is what the theorem is actually about. The 'monkeys' were just a metaphor for the randomness, as it was easier for people to imagine at the time. Actual monkeys aren't just random machines, and ignoring the outcome of the experiment with the actual monkeys, and assuming they would keep typing, they would eventually fall into patterns.
The big issue with the theorem is that people take the monkeys to literally, when the theorem literally has nothing to do with monkeys.
100% agree, still made me cry with laughter at Sneaky’s take. And then DL’s following that. 😂
These guys are professional video game players for a reason. Lol
@@ollirune but he completely fucking lost me when he started talking about feeling in the monty hall problem, just completely disregarded the stats and went full Pepega
@@brandonvelasquez7927 Monty Hall problem requires a really controlled environment to succeed. Sneaky is a really practical person and the theory of the problem doesn’t really matter to him, he only cares about practical application. This is highlighted in the Infinite Monkey theory discussion, where sneaky brings up the fact that a Monkey isn’t genuinely random, all conscious living beings have innate biases. It might like certain keys more than others, might like the sound the keys make when it presses keys with its whole hand instead of just one at a time etc. In a sterile testing environment these observations and theories can work, but in the unpredictability of the real world it’s hard to consider them rules to live by.
The infinite monkey theorem for League of Legends: Given an infinite number of time, and that the monkey does random inputs using both the mouse and keyboard, the monkey will almost surely recreate any given play in league of legends, including the iconic moments of Monkey v Ryu, Monkeylife hooks, and Monkeylift flashing in and getting oneshot by Viktor as Lucian.
But all the players would have to be monkeys
@@46raulfull Wait a sec... they're not?
@@Pseudologion no, monkeys would do much better, since pure randomness would be so much better than most if my ranked games
Watching sneaky struggle to grasp what probability is was so funny.
The monkey is supposed to be a metaphor for a device that produces random characters, not literally a monkey. Sneaky is taking it too literally and actually hitting on the true meaning in the process
Its not even a metaphor, its stated in the problem, that the monkey will infact type randomly and not like an actual monkey.
Exactly. It's so triggering that they focus on the monkey but ignore the insight behind the theory.
@@cheeselover7921 it’s not that he’s taking it too literally at all. It’s being presented as if it’s literally a monkey typing for an infinite time. It may be true but it’s so fucking hard to believe if you don’t have a good understanding of infinity
@@AlluckyTV But thats exactly what sneaky does, taking it too literally. Maybe doublelift presented the problem the wrong way.
@@cheeselover7921 it only works if you take it literally. Infinite amount of monkeys is infinite possibilities.
6:32 if NA played league for an infinite amount of time, they would win worlds at least once
worldSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS xDDDDDDDDD
I want to see Sneaky or DL to post this on their Twitter god damn it
Today I watched league players become philosophers and I think that is the natural progression of humanity
I made a quick function to test the Monty Hall after watching it because I was tilted. All you need to do is make an array with [G,G,C] in and pick a random number between 0-2 each loop. If it lands on 0 or 1 it gets the goat and switches to car, if it lands on 2 it gets the car and switches to goat. Ran it for 1000 iterations repeatedly and every single time the win ratio was around 65% (average), the worst I ever got was 61%, which is still in the favour of switching. DL explained it pretty badly but Sneaky is just wrong, you objectively win more often if you switch.
Yeah, 7 years ago when I first heard about this problem I kind of understood it after hearing why it worked but it was still fucking with my brain so I programmed up a simulation too.
@@TimmehTRP that's what gets me about it. Like I kind of understand the logic of the math but I'm just so smooth brain that I don't understand why it works that way. One of those I don't know what I don't know kind of things I guess.
This is the most passionate I've ever seen sneaky be about something.
sneaky's brain cant handle thought experiments, lol.
He said it right its impossible whole univers will die until monkey can write shakespeare cuz more stars and planets die than creates
@@adammiller8705 well that means eveything is possible with infinite amount of time
@@June-gq9me Not everything is possible. Everything that is possible can or will eventually occur in infinite time but things that are impossible and has a 0% chance of occuring will never happen even in infinite time.
@@lifeofrj9707 True but also you have a chance to have your atoms match up perfectly with the floor and you fall right through it but it will never happen but it theoretically could happen but its so close to zero that it might as well be zero. Sneaky is right in all these if your looking at it logically and rationally but if you toss probability into the mix then anything is possible but why bet on a 0.00000000000000001 chance. the 3 door thing is just having to know the host wants you to stick with your door and intentionally doesn't show the one with the car but also people are people and whos to say he wants you to switch so you will be wrong like its a silly question that wants you to overthink it which is what the host would be doing in the actual scenario making you overthink and question your choice. its dumb and makes you feel more dumb trying to reason with the problem lol.
@@June-gq9me The monkey shit was more understandable because yeah that would never actually work IRL it only applies as a theory(and one that only works when strictly stating the monkeys do not act like real monkeys). But their take on monty hall was just dumb AF, the math is 100% solid and applicable when replicated IRL. The guy that switches will win more times than the guy that doesn't regardless of how many times you say switching doesn't matter. The dude just doesn't understand probability. Was funny AF to watch tho.
These 3 are the only ones who make watching LCS fun...
YUUUUUUUUUUUP !
I would pay to see these 3 do a podcast of just random things.
That's what we're getting on these co-streams, but we get it for free
the 3 cams on the screen was a nice touch
great work holy shit i love this stuff man
CO-Stream is the best thing to happen to LCS
Wow lol, i love sneaky but jesus christ him not understanding the monkey thing drove me a bit nuts haha
Sneaky is the only person i have ever watched learn less after being given new information xD
“I found a picture of Finn” is such an underrated joke
This was the funniest week of co streams ever lmao. I love these 3 together.
I really love that Doublelift knows discrete math.
seriously. dude is legit smart. didn't even go to college and knows discrete math
Props to the editor for stitching in sneaky and meteos’ cams from their streams!
I wait for next time when they introduce Sneaky to Schrodinger's cat. He'd go ballistic.
That’s because Schrodinger’s cat is a thought experiment meant to point out a paradox in a system of thought, it’s not a factual thing
"Sneaky, do you not understand the concept of infinity?"
when you tilt at sneaky being dumb just remember if its possible we have an infinite amount of universes that exist without our knowledge in one of those universes sneaky actually understands the problem.
true
there are an infinite number of real numbers between 0 and 1 but none of those numbers are 2
Haha, I'm not sure. . This comment makes me see the light of Sneakys arguement
There are exactly 6 possible situations:
1. g G c
2. g c G
3. G c g
4. G g c
5. c G g
6 .c g G
let's say you chose door number 1, then you will be right in only case 5 and 6 so 2/6 = 1/3.
If you switch then you would be right in cases 1 to 4. so 4/6 = 2/3
The easiest way to explain why in that case it's always statically better to switch is this. In the beginning, you have three doors, and only one of them is the current choice. So you have a 1/3 chance of being correct, and a 2/3 of being incorrect. They key to understanding this is lies in changing your perspective from trying to "win" to trying to lose.
Let's say you were intentionally trying to lose, then in this case, the door you choose at first has a 66.6% chance of being the correct choice (losing choice).
Now, regardless of which door you chose at first, the host will always eliminate one of the options by revealing it. So now, you're left with two doors ; one of them is the winning door, and the other is the losing door. This is where people trip up all the time. If there are only two doors left, then people think your chances of winning are only 50/50 no matter which you choose. That is true... but only if you started with two doors... which we didn't
Think back to the beginning. The door you randomly choose among the three options had a 66.6% chance of being wrong. That doesn't change even after one of the door has been eliminated. So if you don't choose to switch, your chances of losing are 66.6%. But since you know that, 66.6% of the time, if you switch, you will win.. It works out to be that always switching will be the correct choice 66.6% of the time.
This requires quite a bit of critical thinking. Most people, honestly speaking, won't be able to wrap their heads around this.
Actually I think it's just
C g g
g C g
g g C
The goats' position dont matter
This is wrong here.
“ That doesn't change even after one of the door has been eliminated.”
It changes. What is failed to be accounted for is that it’s a separate instance of time.
It’s very low probability to flip a coin heads 100 times in a row. However, if you flip a coin heads 99 times in a row, and you are now in that instance of time, what are the chances you flip heads?
50/50
@Mistral Wind You know it's been proven that it is mathematically better to swap right?
I thought about this for while in my kitchen using 3 coasters to represent each door and I finally got it. For those of you who still don't get the Monty Hall Problem this explanation might help you. Put simply, you have a 2/3 chance of picking the goat door, but you don't know which two are goat doors and which one is a car. But after you pick a door, the host opens a goat door. This is the key to the whole problem. The host can only reveal a goat when he opens that door. See, since you have 2/3 chance of opening the wrong door, the odds are in your favor to get it wrong most of the time. But the host HAS to open of the doors with a goat, as the rules state. Meaning, you can assume that 2/3 of the time, you chose a door with a goat and the door the host is showing you is the other goat! That means that 2/3 of the time the only other door left has to be the car door.
I'm glad that everyone in twitch chat is an expert on the Monty Hall problem
Sneaky probably thinks having 66% crit chance is the same as having 33% crit chance, because it is still just luck if he crits or not
Just replying to make you cringe at yourself on this comment
Without a doubt the most entertaining costream you 3 have done!
Love this video format
That beginning describes so many people in so many areas of life.
Finished the last video just as this was uploaded, double Doublelift
I'm glad that ultimately, you can't argue with math. It took me some time to come around on that Monty Hall problem, but I'm now enlightened.
and wrong 😆
The Monkey Theorem: Sneaky struggles to understand the concept of infinity
The Monty Hall Problem: Sneaky struggles to understand the probability of being right on your first try
In this episode: Sneaky doesn't understand infinity
A class in probability, this is what I've come to expect from Doublelift podcasts. What I've learned: The Triple Monkey Theorem
Simplest alternate explanation of Monty Python problem imo:
When you picked one at the start you had a 1/3 chance to get it right. If you could somehow pick the other two doors, you would have a 2/3 chance. The host removes a door by showing it has a goat, and now the last door has that 2/3rd chance.
The probabilities do not change after the reveal at all. The two doors the contestant leaves for the host have probabilities of either 0 and 2/3, or 2/3 and 0.
Some of the hardest I have laughed in a while.. Thanks!
About the monty hall problem, basically knowing where the 2nd goat was is not going to change your initial 33% chance on getting the car, so mathematicly, choosing the other door is more likely (66%) to have the car, because in terms of %chance, you are not likely to select the car in the first place.
Exactly, the host opening a wrong door doesn't change your decision at the end to change or not. It would be exactly the same if you picked 1 door and he asks would you like to change to BOTH the other doors? Which you of course would do
Exactly, the fact the host always reveals a goat form the remaining doors means that we gain no new information about the door we initially picked. If Monty reveals randomly then the odds of our door increase but as the problem is presented our initial choice stays at 1/3 odds.
Dead ass I love these videos so much cuz it reminds me of me and my homies chillin in chat shittin on everything
this is the content i really want
man that's content !!! much love
i died when chat said "100 Doors vs Immortals?" lmao
"What if there was an infinite monkey theorem but for league? like after an amount of time you just become faker" I mean, kind of what happened with Fudge. Dude went from an absolute ape his first split to one of the best top laners in LCS.
He was already good at the start, other pro's and analysts vouched for that, he was probably just super nervous or adjusting to a new environment
Bruh fudge had already completed at works before joining c9. He didn't just come out of nowhere some random ape lol.. he's been training and prepping to be a pro for years now. He's looked pretty bad recently but ide say overall c9 has developed him well
Back to an ape
These were the best 10 Minutes of my life in the beginning here. I will come back and hear them talk about the infinite monkey theorem.
trueee I had to come back to this
Listening to you three talk shit and commentate is simply beautiful. Keep this going!
Three minutes in and Sneaky trying to comprehend the infinite is pretty hilarious.
The 100 door one actually makes it a lot easier to understand. There’s no way you’re picking the car door on the first try so when it’s brought down to the last two doors it has to be the other one based on the initial probability
@Vinny Morrison it is based on the initial probability though, especially with the 100 door one. You are almost guaranteed to pick a goat door on the first try because its literally a 99% chance you do. If you're left with two doors, it doesn't automatically become a 50/50 because you know that the one that you chose initially is probably a goat. Free car
Dude wtf Meteos' explanation was so good
The monty hall one ✨
Ougi taught me the Monty Hall Problem, since then I've seen it appear in tons of other places it's great
Wait... so you're saying my BoRK, Wits End, Hullbreaker build isn't viable?
cleaned up co-stream VOD upload meta is my favorite
Watched the whole stream on Twitch VODs (since I can't wait) but came here to like the video and comment just to boost it in the algorithm.
The only time I've ever had a build that eventually got adapted to pro play was when ekko first dropped. I ran IBG and Visage on him in mid. And it was awful. But eventually, someone way better than me made it work in the top lane.
I love the timestamp!!!! hahaha
We need a podcast in offseasons please i dont want to go without this content 😂
This was genuinely funny jesus
Meteos is right in that, as the host, knowing which door has the car and actually picking the others to show the contestant is the difference. An example of both are the classic monty hall problem based on the old game show "Lets Make A Deal" where switching is in the contestants best interest. However, if the host doesn't know where the car is and opens doors at random, in the event there are two doors left (with the car behind one of those doors) its a literal 50/50 chance. An example of this can be seen in the game show "Deal or No Deal" where the contestant actually picks the door to open each time (obviously the constant wouldn't know which door the prize is behind because it would be a pointless show lol).
You got it exactly right!
i just realised ga on veigo wont proc when he takes over someone
Watch one day way way too long away this occurs and people come back to this specific video hahaha
finally the triple monkey theorem, the classic conundrum
sneaky cannot fathom the concept of infinity
They say this about bowling. There has been so many games bowled that there is no new pin patterns paths and or solutions. For a single frame.
@Doublelift, 38:15 your target is switching because the game thinks that Akshan is killing his first target, therefore the second shot is going to the other practice dummy
Meteos's explanation at 20:00 is essentially the example that statistics professors explain but even they dont understand it
oh no ... sneaky went full on
The infinite monkey theorem section made me laugh way too hard
31:50 Lmao Ssumday switches to naut while he has GA and loses his GA and so he dies instantly instead. Thats hilarious.
Re: the Monty Hall problem, the solution can be more easily visualized with 1000 doors. Say you choose the first door. Then, there are 999/1000 scenarios in which the car is in the other 999 doors.
If the host opens 998 doors, the chance that the car is in the other 999 doors has not changed. Since we know 998/999 doors don't have the goat and *your door chance has not changed*, the other door would have a 999/1000 chance of containing the car.
Essentially, you have a 1/1000 chance of choosing the correct door off the bat, and a 999/1000 chance of the car being in "the other doors". Opening 998 doors does not change the chance of the car being in the other doors, ergo 999/1000 chance.
I think it's easiest by just removing any of the percentage/maths talk and reducing it purely to scenarios. You have 3 scenarios: you pick the first goat, you pick the second goat, or you pick the car. In both of the scenarios where you pick a goat you should switch, so in 2 out of 3 scenarios you need to switch.
@@Sirhaddock Haven't heard this explanation earlier, that's a good one too!
@Mistral Wind that's not how maths works. You can make a program that simulates this problem and switching makes you win 66%+ of the time. Switching objectively gives you a higher chance of winning, it doesn't balance out. One has a 2/3 chance of winning and the other has a 1/3 chance, it's just a bigger number.
It took me so fucking long to adapt my head around the Monty Hall Theory
It's going to take some more time yet, guaranteed.
I want to hear them talk about the Ship of Theseus now >:)
I think modern CLG is proof that the Ship isn't the same once you've replaced all the parts.
Im dead when sneaky says it is math but it is not logical lol
They went from a thought experiment about probability to discussing the process of evolution
For the next co-stream I beg you give them the Schrödinger's cat paradox think that would be hilarious
i so wish i was there to explain why switching doors is better than staying the same
It's probably an easier analogy to say. Even a broken clock is right twice a day
Salve Doublelift!
always need to account for variable change
Say that there's 3 people that each get 3 doors to choose from (9 doors in total). They all pick different doors (2 of them pick the goat and 1 picks the car). As long as the host shows each person the door that has the goat, if everyone switches, the 2 people who pick the goat gets the car, and the one person who picked the car gets the goat. The fact that 2 of the 3 people can get the car means that when you switch, there's a 2/3 chance that you get the car assuming that each person represents a different scenario whether you pick door A, B, or C. After all, this is just probability. It doesn't guarantee your chances of getting the car, but rather it helps you get in a better position going from a 33% chance to a 66% chance. The chances were not based on what doors were left (a 50/50), but it's based on what door you picked initially and if the host ALWAYS reveals the goat.
Yes, but actually no, the other door also has 1/3 of having the car, it still 33% at the end.
@@gabrielsgrottmoreira3149 Are you talking about that there's a 33% chance the host shows a car after you picked your door? If so, I'm only talking about all scenarios where the host always shows the goat after you picked the door.
@@damusagi Half of the possibilities are that you are wrong at changing the door, but I don't know how to prove it so...
But I understand that your point is that we have 66% at being wrong at the first guess.
@@gabrielsgrottmoreira3149 "I can prove it but I don't know how to," then you can't prove it, lol.
If you have 1000 doors, one leads to a car, 999 leads to nothing. If you pick a door then eliminate 998 doors that contain nothing, you SHOULD SWITCH because that last door has a high chance of being the car, as the 998 doors were eliminated proving that THEY WERE NOTHING so you have a higher chance of being correct. One is a 0.1% chance of being the car, the other is 99.99%.
@@JohnDoe-vb3fk I mean mathematical proof, because it's a statistic problem.
You have n options, 1 is right the other are wrong, as you select one answer n-2 wrong answers are excluded, what is the chance of the other option being the correct?
I know that 1/2= 0.5, but doesnt mean that this is a proof nor your comment does proves anything.
It's the chance that you picked the correct door is less
On Akshan its because the game thinks the first dummy is dying so it puts the second shot on the full life dummy. Just like Lucian double shot ability when you cast it on a dying minion.
Think of it like this, you start with picking the 1 door but then after he shows you the goat you’re picking the other 2 doors playing the odds that 1 of those 2 has the car
"IT'S NOT MATH, IT'S LOGIC!" - Sneaky, 2021
23:03 chatting
They should do a podcast on philosophies and theories 😂😂
Sneaky is actually trolling
I wonder if Sneaky would have believed it if he had seen a table showing all the possible outcomes?
Given an infinite amount of time, Sneaky will eventually understand the Monty Hall problem
What is that low rumbling thats randomly happening?
sneaky smol brain hehe
Sneaky: If it was corpse res back into a teamfight, that's not balanced.
riot: introducing Renata!
doubepiss philosoph of the year, also if they have one random moment of enligtement and they're right, they deserve props as monkey whom written that shakespear
ah the ol monte cristo problem
the melee reference
The easiest way to understand the Monty Hall problem is realizing the host didn't open that last door for a reason. Taking doublelift's 100 doors and 98 are opened idea, why exactly would the host open all of those 98 doors and not the ONE left besides yours if it wasn't important?
There is technical and pretty abstract math behind it that I was forced to learn for pharmacy pre-reqs but this thought process was the "oh okay" moment for me. Hope this helps!
Bro the first 5 minutes had me dead asf
The infinite tyler1 theory stated that given an infinite amount of time, tyler1’s intro would create every single work of literature including Shakespeare.
Sneaky: You have to discard math to solve a probability problem.
Me: Seems legit
9:13 Sneaky says "if it's a monkey" and I see Kobe in the back flailing his arms like some kind of monkey lmao
came here expecting some lcs games, can't say i'm not satisfied!
"its not probability, its just luck" You're not wrong