This figure, right?

[IMG]http://i40.tinypic.com/mvn23s.png[/IMG]

A plot of 4 curves. 2 theoretical (one the function 1/N, the other (N-1)/N), and two from simulations. The two simulated curves sit nearly exactly on top of the theoretical curves.

So again, I don't see the connection between this plot and your argument..

ekt_bear: This figure, right?

.....
So again, I don't see the connection between this plot and your argument..

So I'm sure we're on the same page, how do you understand my argument?

Why don't you simply explain your argument succinctly and clearly? I have no clue what it is, to be honest. I don't see the connection between that graph and anything having to do with human vs. computer.

There is story, taken literally as it relates to human(a person asking what's my optimum choice in this case as @queensmith pointed as in many game shows)

There is the story as it relates to using to solve problems meant for computers (or modeled through them).

You've concluded that irrespective of who is solving that problem the, the outcome is generally the same -- switching is always optimum. Per that modeling, it really doesn't matter if the person solving can solve a large amount of 'doors.'

If on the game show, you are told that the rules of the game correspond to this problem setup and there are N doors, your success rate if you switch is (N-1)/N.

If a computer is given the rules of this game, it should be programmed to switch too.

Unless you decide to change the rules or change the problem setup in some way, the then optimal strategy remains the same. Whether human, computer, alien, etc.

This is basically like a coin flipping problem. If you know the probably that the coin will come up heads is 2/3 and you win when it comes up heads, then you bet head every time. Unless the problem setup changes, my optimal strategy is the same, independent of anything else.