Quiz time

[hexbaz]

Just to clarify, the host knows what is behind the doors and always reveals a goat leaving one goat and the car remaining.OK - I will stick with my answer then... You should switch doors, as there will be a greater chance of winning due to the skewed probability caused by the host not making a random choice, where your choice is random.

Say the car is behind door 1 ...
If you choose door 2 the host will open door 3... So if you switch, you win.
If you choose door 3 the host will open door 2... So if you switch, you win.
If you choose door 1 the host will open 2 or 3 - This is the only scenario where switching causes you to lose.

So you have two chances to win if you switch versus one if you stick (and originally chose door 2).

So because the host knows what he is doing, you have double the chance of winning if you switch your original choice. (I think!).

[silentC]

That doesn't look right to me. You really only have a choice of two doors because the host takes one out of the picture. In your scenario, doors 2 & 3 are effectively the same door, because whichever one you pick, he will eliminate the other. The probability of choosing the correct door is always 0.5 because at the end you are left with a decision between 2 doors: keep the door you have, or pick the other one. Heads or tails. That's a probability of 0.5 of picking the right one.

It actually doesn't matter which door you pick first because you are always going to be left with one door with a goat and another with a car. If the host didn't open his door and his choice was random too, then that would be a different story.

Probability therefore doesn't help and it doesn't matter whether you keep your door or switch, the chance of getting the car is the same.

[simon c]

sorry silent c but yours is the intuitive answer and isn't correct - hexbaz has got it spot on, the chance of winning if you switch is twice as high as if you stick. Your point about doors 2&3 effectively becoming the same door is true, but the effect of that is to combine the probability of each door into the single door, rather than eliminating that dorr's probability.

Another way to look at it is to consider if you stuck with teh same door. When you originally pick a door, the chance of you getting it right is 1 in 3. If you always stick with that door, then the chance of getting it right remains 1 in 3 irrespective of what the host does. probability must always add up to 1 so if the chance of winning if you stick is 1 in 3, then the chance of winning if you switch must be 2 in 3.

I suggest you try it as it becomes more clear when you actually go through the motions. If you decide to always stick you'll see that the chance of winning is only 1 in 3.

Simon

[duckman]

sorry silent c but yours is the intuitive answer and isn't correct - hexbaz has got it spot on, the chance of winning if you switch is twice as high as if you stick. Your point about doors 2&3 effectively becoming the same door is true, but the effect of that is to combine the probability of each door into the single door, rather than eliminating that dorr's probability.

Another way to look at it is to consider if you stuck with teh same door. When you originally pick a door, the chance of you getting it right is 1 in 3. If you always stick with that door, then the chance of getting it right remains 1 in 3 irrespective of what the host does. probability must always add up to 1 so if the chance of winning if you stick is 1 in 3, then the chance of winning if you switch must be 2 in 3.

I suggest you try it as it becomes more clear when you actually go through the motions. If you decide to always stick you'll see that the chance of winning is only 1 in 3.

Simon

Odds of 1 in 3 as I stated are correct at the start. However, once the host has eliminated one door and invited you to either stay with your current selection or switch doors, IOW a second guess, then surely we are starting over with only 2 doors to choose from which means we have odds of 1 in 2?

[simon c]

Sorry duckman, it's not the equivalent of starting over. As I said this is really counter-intuitive and even though mathematically I "know" the right answer - it still feels wrong. The only way I convinced myself was to sit down and try it.

[simon c]

By the way - this isn't just a made up puzzle, it is based on a real game show from the sixties called "Let's make a deal" (like an early day The Price is Right) and is known as the Monty Hall puzzle as he was the host.

[silentC]

Lies, damn lies and statistics. I think this is a subtle trick being played by mathematics.

The fact that the host is taking one of the goat doors away means there are only two doors to choose from. It doesn't matter which door you choose first because you will always have two doors, one with a goat, one with a car. Therefore the probability of choosing the correct door first is irrelevant. This is where the error lies because you can't allow the probability of choosing the correct door first to enter into the calculation. You still have to choose between two doors and this decision eliminates the probability of getting the correct door first. If you had to stick with your original choice, then I agree the probability is 1 in 3.

The question is, now that I have two doors to pick from, which one should it be (should I switch or not?). The door that is opened by the host is a furphy, it might as well not be there at all because it has no affect on the probability of finding the car.

Say the car is door 1.

If you pick door 1, the host picks 2. You now have to choose between doors 1 & 3. Probability of choosing the correct door is 0.5
If you pick door 2, the host picks 3. You choose between 1 & 2. Probability = 0.5.
You pick door 3, host picks 2, you choose between 1 & 3. Probability = 0.5.

If it is truly random, then your decision to switch or not has no bearing on the actual location of the car. In a perfect world, half the time it would be behind the door you picked first and half the time it would be behind the other door. It's never going to be behind the third door.

This is why I have a major problem with probability and statistics in general.

[simon c]

silent c - there is no trick, but the answer is not 50:50. The fact that the host opens a door is not a furphy but is fundamental to the process because he knows the answer and chooses after you have made your choice.

If we have some independant volunteers (maybe an administrator) I'm happy to try this online as an experiment. We would ahve to do it a few times so it averages out.

[silentC]

The funny thing about probability is that you can't prove it with practical examples. The probability of tossing heads vs. tails is 50/50, yet it is possible that you can toss a coin a hundred times and get 100 heads in a row. This does not prove that the probability of tossing tails is 0.

I think that it all hinges upon whether you allow the first pick to be factored in to the equation. If you do, then you are correct. If you do not, then I am. From my studies of the subject, I think this is a matter of debate. I prefer the logical approach, which says that two unconnected actions cannot have an influence on each other. Once you have chosen the first door, where you had a 1 in 3 chance of being correct, that decision is history and has no bearing on your next decision in terms of probability.

We're never going to agree on this, so we might have to agree to disagree. It was your question, so you get the call on who is right.

But you're wrong ;)

[simon c]

I'm tempted to keep biting back here but I might end it with an agreement to disagree.

But I REALLY suggest that you actaually spend a bit of time trying it as it was the only way I finally convinced myself. I understand you saying that getting 100 heads in a row doesn't prove anything but in actually trying it you may find that the result surprises you.

Thanks for the discussion anyway.

Simon

[silentC]

It would be boring if we always agreed ;)

Don't worry, I used to have similar arguments with my stats lecturer about probability. When you're studying it, you just have to accept the rules - if you want to pass that is. But in the real world :D

[simon c]

Silent c, this isn't an argument about maths and the real world and about different peoples opinions. I'm really, really, really suggesting that you and your partner try it as it is impossible to convince anybody on this using logic or argument or probability etc. It's just that when you try it, it starts to become clear that switching is obviously the right answer.

Pleasetry it

[silentC]

OK, here is a table of possible outcomes:

Let's say the car is behind door 2.

You pick door 1 and you switch - you win
You pick door 1 and you don't switch - you lose
You pick door 2 and you switch - you lose
You pick door 2 and you don't - you win
You pick door 3 and you switch - you win
You pick door 3 and you don't - you lose

So there are three 'win' outcomes and three 'lose' outcomes for all combinations of choices. That says to me a 50/50 chance of getting it right. However, if you analyse it on the basis of whether you switch or not, there are two good outcomes for switching vs. only one for not switching.

On that basis, it would appear that you are right. In order to win when switching, you must have chosen a goat door first. There is a 2 in 3 probability of that. Assuming that you have made up your mind to switch, you have a 2 in 3 chance of winning the car.

Hmmm, something funny going on here....

[simon c]

it's a tricky one isn't it

[silentC]

Yes the mistake I made was to assume that the first choice is irrelevant. :o

I always hated stats.

[duckman]

Silent c, this isn't an argument about maths and the real world and about different peoples opinions. I'm really, really, really suggesting that you and your partner try it as it is impossible to convince anybody on this using logic or argument or probability etc. It's just that when you try it, it starts to become clear that switching is obviously the right answer.

Pleasetry it
Whoa there! Please don't mistake the enthusiasm of the particpants in this quiz as an argument. I for one find this problem quite enthralling. And after reading SilentC's lastest post, I think I am now beginning to see where I was going wrong.

The first choice, as Silent has pointed out, IS relevant and I should have been looking at the chances of selecting a goat door and the effect that would have on the odds of selecting the car door on the second guess.

Phew... this is a good one. Please continue..
:)

[simon c]

Duckman - I think silent & I were having an argument, but a good one. It's probably not possible to have this much enthusiasm without it becoming an argument.

This is one of the best puzzles I've ever seen as even though i know the right answer and can explain it mathematically and can see it happen in real life, it still doesn't feel right.

[Tristan Croll]

Here's a really good way to think about this one.

What if, rather than 3 doors, there were 100, 99 of which had goats. You make your choice, and then the host removes 98 of the remaining doors, leaving two. So, in your first choice you had a 99/100 chance of choosing a goat, and only a 1/100 chance of choosing the car. Therefore, you have a 99/100 chance of winning if you switch.

[duckman]

Duckman - I think silent & I were having an argument, but a good one. It's probably not possible to have this much enthusiasm without it becoming an argument. :D You're probably right. Of course we could argue about that. :)


This is one of the best puzzles I've ever seen as even though i know the right answer and can explain it mathematically and can see it happen in real life, it still doesn't feel right.
I think it becomes clear when one looks at from the perspective of the odds of selecting a goat door rather than the car door.

Damn good puzzle in any case. :)

[silentC]

Was reading some history on this puzzle. It was first 'solved' by Marilyn vos Savant (smartest person in the World apparently, highest IQ anyway).

When she published the answer (2 of 3) she was shouted down by a few mathematicians who said that the answer should be 50/50. The reason is because she never stated the assumption that the host knew which door had the car and that he always gave the contestant the option to choose another door. She later clarified these assumptions.

There's a simulator here: http://planettom.home.mindspring.com/vossavant.htm

[silentC]

I just did 12 trials and got a 50/50 result, which just goes to show that probability is a load of rubbish ;)

[Bob Willson]

I also did a run of 12 trials. Got a 75% success rate when I switched every time.

[silentC]

I should point out that this simulator is using the Javascript math.random function, which is only a simulated random number generator. Computers are incapable of selecting a truly random number. But then game show creators are probably no better at it.

[Tristan Croll]

Well, I did 12 trials and got an exact 2/3 success rate. Just goes to show that I am entirely predictable... :D

[simon c]

Silent c, if you tried it 12 times and got 50/50 then that shows that statistics is a load of rubbish - which I agree with.

I remember reading something about how many times you have to repeat an event statistically before you can prove/disprove it. In theory, you can't disprove something using statistics because as silent c said in an earlier post, it's possible to throw 100 heads in a row. However, I read somewhere that if you throw a certain number of heads in a row (it may have been as low as 12) then it is more likely that the coin is double headed than it is a random event.

[simon c]

Marilyn vos Savant (smartest person in the World apparently, highest IQ anyway).

I like the way you put a question around the correlation between smartness and IQ. I'm lucky(?) enough to have a very high IQ. Does this make me really smart? No it just means I'm really, really good at those stupid puzzles they put in IQ tests.

[simon c]

Computers are incapable of selecting a truly random number.

Here's a philosophical question. Is it possible to ever pick a truly random number?

PS silent, I'm not picking on you - I'm just enjoying the discussion

[hexbaz]

Wow - what a hornet's nest we've stirred up! Neat simulator! I achieved 65% with 50 tries (switching and sticking alternately; not too scientific). I liked the explanation given by Tristan Croll (100 doors), which really shows how the host's knowledge is skewing the probabilities.

The key to me getting it right was that the host will always show a goat. He will never show that you have won without 'allowing' you to switch. It is this simple fact which screws the mind. Nice to see that it was originally solved by the smartest person in the world.

I got way more clues probably - but then again I a member of Mensa! :o

As Simon C says, I do not believe that my IQ equates to smartness, and the Mensa entry test in no way tests knowledge - just the ability to work out puzzles. Maybe you should join, Simon! ... But then, like me, you might be accused of being a nerd (as I have been in this very board).

Nice puzzle Simon.

[outback]

I'll take a stab atit, seems no-oune else is game to make a goose of themselves.

As the contestant, with three choices, the chances of picking the car are 1 in three.
The compere will always be able to pick a goat, but this has no bearing on your chances, they are still 1 in three.

Stick, swap, doesn't matter, the chances that you pick a car are one in three.

[hexbaz]

I'll take a stab atit, seems no-oune else is game to make a goose of themselves.

As the contestant, with three choices, the chances of picking the car are 1 in three.
The compere will always be able to pick a goat, but this has no bearing on your chances, they are still 1 in three.

Stick, swap, doesn't matter, the chances that you pick a car are one in three.Seems you missed the answer amongst the 'debate'. The answer was given way back - read down the last 10 or so posts.

It does matter - and you should switch!

[simon c]

Thanks hexbaz

Just to close it out, you should switch as there is a 1 in 3 chance of winning if you stick and a 2 in 3 chance of winning if you switch.

I think hexbaz got it first but silentc worked the hardest for it - so it's up to you guys for the next one.

In the meantime how about a discussion on the question I slipped in to the middle of the discussion. If a computer can't pick a random number, how can you pick a "truly" random number?

[silentC]

Well, the reason a computer can't pick a truly random number is because given the same seed and the same parameters, it will always arrive at the same random number. That's easy enough to understand because computer has to do what it's programmer instructed it to do. You can't tell it to do something randomly without telling it how, which means it is no longer random.

Can you say the same thing for the human brain? If you are asked to pick a number between 1 and 100, is that random, or are you more likely to pick certain numbers. How many people would never pick 1 and never pick 100?

One method would be to have the numbers written on equally sized slips of paper in a box and draw one out. For it to be truly random, there has to be an equal probability that any of the numbers in the range could be chosen.

[craigb]

Is there a current quiz question, or has this forum morphed into the Stats forum? :)

[silentC]

I think the probability of there being a current question, with a 99% level of confidence, is 0.01.

[craigb]

Ha Ha :D :D

[silentC]

OK, Hexbaz is asleep so...

Who is this:

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~xbum/Assets/pic3.jpg

[craigb]

None other than the Pig of Steel, Captain Goodvibes

[silentC]

Keeerect. Your go....

[craigb]

O.K.
Continuing the theme, name this character.

[simon c]

Mr Natural?

Here's a tip craig. Next time you post a thumbnail make sure you change the name of the file.

Simon

[craigb]

Mr Natural?

Here's a tip craig. Next time you post a thumbnail make sure you change the name of the file.

Simon

Oops :o

You are right of course.

Your go.

[Kris.Parker1]

Gold, refined copper, Uranium Oxide Concentrate and silver

[hexbaz]

Gold, refined copper, Uranium Oxide Concentrate and silverOK, I give up! Is this the answer to a question, or a partial question. Sorry, but either way it makes no sense to me.

[Kris.Parker1]

Just a reply to a previous question on the previous page (about three posts ago abouit Olympic Dam).

If you want a question here one is...

What are the tiny plastic things at the end of your shoe laces called?

[AlexS]

Aguillettes....or the Anglicised version, aglets

[simon c]

New quiz:

Where and what is the tallest structure in Australia

[craigb]

If we are talking man made, then I would say the Rialto in Melbourne.

[hexbaz]

I was going to suggest Rialto (I've been up there!), but I bet there are radio masts higher, elsewhere in Oz.

Are the plans for the world's largest structure still on the cards? A solar power tower was going to be built in the outback by a company called Enviromission, who last year claimed the tower, at a height of 1,000 metres would be about twice the height of the current tallest structure in the world.

It was a clever design, using solar energy to cause an updraught inside the tower (by heating a glass-house at its base - the tower acting like a chimney), which would drive turbines to produce the electricity. This concept only works well if you go to huge heights. There were also claims that there would be enough residual heat in the 'glasshouse' to enable generation for 24 hours.

It is allegedly expected to be completed in 2006 in the remote Buronga district in New South Wales.

[simon c]

The rialto is the tallest building in australia, but as Hexbaz implies, there are quite a number of other structures that are taller.

Keep guessing

[hexbaz]

OK, I have done a little research, and it seems that at 427 metres, the Omega Base Navigation Mast in Sale, Vic is the largest structure in Australia.

Of course, if they do build that solar tower it will be BY FAR the largest, at 1000 metres, in 2006.

[simon c]

is the correct answer

your turn

[hexbaz]

hmmm. Since by some fluke (and a little research) a pommie got an ozzie question correct, I suppose (given that it is my bed time!) I should pose a similar (and probably far too easy) Brit question for you....

What is the highest structure currently open to the public in London, England?

[simon c]

hmm, could be a few options here:

1. The pedantic answer. What is the HIGHEST structure in London currently open to the public? Hamstead Hill is the highest point in london so there probably is at least a public toilet on the hill that is open to the public.
2. Canary Wharf is the TALLEST buidling, but by your emphasis that isn't right. I think it is closed to the public on terrorism grounds rather like the Post Office tower was closed to the public in the 70's.
3. I assume the same logic applies to the other tall buildings, eg NatWest tower (or whatever it is called now).
4. That means the answer is the London Eye?

Simon

[hexbaz]

Yes - somewhat surprisingly, that is correct. It is possible to gain access to the other buildings you mention, but the observation decks are no longer open to the general public.

So back to you again!

[hexbaz]

OK; simon c is obviously reluctant to give us a new challenge! Here's one to ponder in the mean time:

What have the following people got in common?

Bob Dylan, Lewis Carroll, Oscar Wilde, Elvis Presley, David Jason, John Lennon, Leonardo da Vinci and Edgar Allan Poe.

[Bob Willson]

They are all dead men. Some may argue the case as the completeness of some of their deaths but the answer is still valid. :)

[hexbaz]

whilst they may well be dead eventually, that is not the answer I was looking for! ;)

[hexbaz]

OK! As small clue: Whilst this fact is true for all those listed, it was best known about Elvis and refers to a time before he became famous.

[outback]

Before he was famous Elvis wasn't dead, So I guess that means they are all alive, Some may argue the case as the completeness of some of their lives but the answer is still valid. :) :D

[Driver]

Before he became famous, Elvis wasn't famous. This was also true for all the others named: before each of them became famous he wasn't famous! This answer is indisputably correct (and grammatically accurate) and I claim the prize!

[craigb]

And I for one think you should have it. It's ineluctable. :D

[gemi_babe]

they all wrote poetry?

[hexbaz]

Nope - and no to the other 'valid' answers. Whilst it is true that Elvis was not dead before he was famous (and by some twisted logic might appear to be the correct answer), this fact is as true about those that are now dead as it is to those who remain alive. The only time it was not true was when they were very young....

That last clue will no doubt be twisted, so the answer is not 'they were all babies'. There is an obvious answer, and it is indesputable. I mentioned Elvis because he was the only one who, until recently, I knew this fact about.

[simon c]

Didn't Elvis have some sort of behavioural disorder like attention deficit disorder or something like that?

[outback]

Nope - and no to the other 'valid' answers. Whilst it is true that Elvis was not dead before he was famous (and by some twisted logic might appear to be the correct answer), this fact is as true about those that are now dead as it is to those who remain alive. The only time it was not true was when they were very young....

That last clue will no doubt be twisted, so the answer is not 'they were all babies'. There is an obvious answer, and it is indesputable. I mentioned Elvis because he was the only one who, until recently, I knew this fact about.
Don't you go and start me on logic. I've had enough logic in the riddle thread to spell Pi to a hundred places!! :D

[Driver]

There is an obvious answer, and it is indesputable.

Perhaps but what craigb and I would like to know is: is it ineluctable? Eh? Eh? Well - is it? ;)

[Bob Willson]

Don't you go and start me on logic. I've had enough logic in the riddle thread to spell Pi to a hundred places!! You don't SPELL Pi to one hundred places, you count it. Imean, that's just logical ain't it? :D

[hexbaz]

Perhaps but what craigb and I would like to know is: is it ineluctable? Eh? Eh? Well - is it? ;)Yes the answer very likely is ineluctable - but I have, of course, no idea what that means!

Hard to give another clue without giving away the answer; it has nothing to do with PI (to any number of places) - the only thing the answer has to do with mathematics is ... 2 minus 1.

So there you go, I have indeed given away the answer (perhaps!).

[Bob Willson]

I am trying doubly hard to get this one.

[hexbaz]

I am trying doubly hard to get this one.Bob has (perhaps unintentionally) come very close to the answer here.

Let me know if you give up! :rolleyes:

[simon c]

Bob has (perhaps unintentionally) come very close to the answer here.

Let me know if you give up! :rolleyes:

I think Bob has intentionally got the right answer

[hexbaz]

So come on - spill the beans! I think either you or Bob should spell out the answer, and put everyone out of their misery!

[Bob Willson]

Does it have anything to do with 2 * Pi? :)

[Driver]

I think it has something to do with twin as a synonym for double, doesn't it?

[hexbaz]

I think it has something to do with twin as a synonym for double, doesn't it?Yes Driver! This is getting painful; but we are moving in the right direction. :)

[duckman]

OK, after reading that latest hint I'll take a swing at this.
They all had a twin. I suspect that those whose twin we've never heard of probably died whilst very young or were possibly still born.

[hexbaz]

... Is the right answer!

In fact they all had a twin who died in infancy, or was stillborn.

In the case of David Jason (British star of TV series 'Only Fools and Horses', 'A Touch of Frost' and 'The Darling Buds of May' amongst others - not sure how many, if any, of these reached Australia!), he chose a stage name in honour of his stillborn twin. His real name is David White and his twin was named Jason posthumously.

As I said before - I knew about Elvis' stillborn twin before. This question turned up in a pub quiz, and nobody got the correct answer!

'Nuff said - it is now Duckman's turn to set a conundrum for us!

[duckman]

Thanks Hex,

OK guys and girls try this one for size.

An old one - but it'll make you think :

Someone introduces you to your mothers only sisters husbands sister-in-law.
He has no brothers.
What do you call this lady ?

[echnidna]

mum

[duckman]

Good one Bob and in only 3 minutes too!

It was the best I could come up with a Saturday night.

Over to you now..

[echnidna]

Hey , I wouldna answered that If I'd thought I have to pose the next riddle.

OK Here Goes
What's black and white and red all over??
Hint -- its not a newspaper!!

[journeyman Mick]

A run over Zebra? :eek:

Mick

[vsquizz]

The last sparky that worked at Squizzy's place:mad:

[Driver]

St Kilda's run at the AFL premiership (it's all over now).

[duckman]

A sunburnt nun. Is that politcally incorrect? I hope so! :D

[echnidna]

Duckman got it.
There are several answers
1 to 3- Sunburnt zebra or nun or collingwood player
4-6 Embarrased zebra or nun or collingwood player

your turn

[hexbaz]

What's black and white and red all over?I realise that this is certain to be wrong, but as as a Brit I'd have to say:

Newcastle United vs Liverpool

;)

[duckman]

OK here goes.

Here is the question:

How do you get 4 triangles out of 6 equal length matchsticks without breaking, overlapping or incomplete shapes (ie, pieces jutting out)?

Hint: feel free to post photos if you have the necessary photographic equipment rather than try to explain it in words. We have the technology, why not use it? :)

[hexbaz]

Not sure whether I really need a picture, but I'm pretty sure the answer is an equilateral (4 sided) pyramid.

... Sorry - I missed duckman's answer to the black, white, red thing - but I was sure that Newcastle vs Liverpool was not the answer!

[duckman]

Not sure whether I really need a picture, but I'm pretty sure the answer is an equilateral (4 sided) pyramid.

... Sorry - I missed duckman's answer to the black, white, red thing - but I was sure that Newcastle vs Liverpool was not the answer!

BUGGER! :)

You got it right already Hexbaz. Geez... from now on ALL my quiz questions will involve holes. :p :p

Over to you...

[hexbaz]

Of course, the down side to answering a question is that you have to think of a new one!

This is probably easy, in that it must be findable with google:

Give the year it happened, and the name and species of the first living creature to make an earth orbit.

[duckman]

Year (guess) 1959
Species: Dog
Name: Laika

[Driver]

Alternatively:-

1521
Ferdinand Magellan
Homo Sapiens

[hexbaz]

I kind of realised that I would get an answer along the lines of Driver's, due to my poor wording.

But duckman extremely rapidly got the answer I was looking for, and was a mere 2 years out, which I think is close enough (given that he could have googled 'Laika' for the correct year - 1957):

Facts and pics here! (http://ham.spa.umn.edu/kris/laika.html)

So I leave duckman and Driver to decide who will set the next test of grey matter!

[Driver]

Your go, duckster!

I was just being a smartarse.

[silentC]

Smarter than the average asre ;)

[Driver]

Smarter than the average asre ;)

Somebody had to say it! :rolleyes: :D

[duckman]

Your go, duckster!

I was just being a smartarse.

I can't think of a damn thing so its 'boink' back to you Driver.. :)

[Driver]

OK

What's wrong with my answer in post #1293 above?

[duckman]

OK

What's wrong with my answer in post #1293 above?
You've lost me. :)

Who said there was anything wrong with it? :confused: