alt Hacker NewsThe difference here is that the Monty Hall problem has an explanation that while counterintuitive, is statistically sound. You should always switch, because the probability you picked the correct door is locked in at the time you made the choice between 3 doors. It is 1/3 that you picked correctly, and 2/3 that you picked incorrectly. The counterintuitive part is that if you switch, you are effectively selecting all the doors you did not pick originally. It's your original door, vs the field.
The green hat problem hinges on subjective interpretations of the meaning of both "liar" and the different ways in which the liar's sentence may be false. It may be false because the liar owns many hats, none of which are green. Or they own many hats, only some of which are green. Or they own no hats. These are all reasonable interpretations of how the sentence might be false, and the answers presented are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Replies
Last time I claimed this was the correct answer, I was linked to the Monty Crawl problem. https://www.probability.ca/jeff/writing/montyfall.pdf
The problem here is that the usual explanation sneaks in multiple rarely stated assumptions.
If Monty knows the door with the prize and is aiming for the game to continue, then you should switch. (This is the usual argument.)
If Monty doesn't know where the prize is, then you learned nothing. (Monty's result was luck, and he can't impart information that he doesn't have.)
If Monty knows where the prize is and wants you to lose, absolutely don't switch. (Monty will only drag the game out as a way to try to make you lose.)
The reasoning behind these statements is completely solid, and there are no hidden assumptions being snuck in.