Matura exam results wrong ? (probabiltity of shooting the target)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Дьявол
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exam
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a matura exam problem involving the probability of shooters missing a target divided into three zones. The original poster believes their solution, which calculates the probability of all shooters missing the target using individual probabilities, is correct. They argue against the provided solution that incorrectly suggests using the union of probabilities, which could lead to negative outcomes if the sum exceeds one. The consensus is that the correct approach is to multiply the probabilities of each shooter missing the target, rather than summing the probabilities of hitting. The confusion stems from the misinterpretation of how the target's zones relate to the shooters' probabilities.
Дьявол
Messages
365
Reaction score
0
matura exam results wrong !? (probabiltity of shooting the target)

Hello!
I got one task that I seem to solved it correctly. But the matura exam results are different then my solution.

Here is the task:
There is one target which is divided on three concentric zones. Here is picture of it:
2hmj4ma.jpg


So the whole target is not the center of the darts, but the whole surface of the darts.

The task is to find the probability that the target will be missed by all of the shooters.


I find it like:

A - the Ist shooter hits the target

B - the IInd shooter hits the target

C- the IIIrd shooter hits the target

P(\bar{A} \cap \bar{B} \cap \bar{C}) = P(\bar{A})*P(\bar{B})*P(\bar{C})=(1-0,16)*(1-0,24)*(1-0,17)

And their solution is 1- P(A U B U C) which they wrote it like 1 - (P(A)+P(B)+P(C)).

Which solution is correct?

Mine or theirs?

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


I find the picture very confusing. It is divided into three areas and each area has a different probability but apparently those probabilities are the probabilities a specific shooter will hit the entire target. The three areas are irrelevant.
If P(A) is the probability that the first shooter will hit the target, P(B) the probability the second shooter will, and P(C) the probability the third shooter will hit the target, then what you give is correct.

What "they" give is incorrect. 1- (A\cup B\cup C) is the probability they do NOT all hit the target- the probability that at least one misses.
(And, by the way, 1- (A\cup B\cup C) is NOT 1- (P(A)+ P(B)+ P(C)). In fact, if P(A)+ P(B)+ P(C)> 1, which is quite plausible, that would give a negative probability! The probability of 1- (A\cup B\cup C) is 1- P(A)*P(B)*P(C).
 


HallsofIvy said:
I find the picture very confusing. It is divided into three areas and each area has a different probability but apparently those probabilities are the probabilities a specific shooter will hit the entire target. The three areas are irrelevant.
If P(A) is the probability that the first shooter will hit the target, P(B) the probability the second shooter will, and P(C) the probability the third shooter will hit the target, then what you give is correct.

What "they" give is incorrect. 1- (A\cup B\cup C) is the probability they do NOT all hit the target- the probability that at least one misses.
(And, by the way, 1- (A\cup B\cup C) is NOT 1- (P(A)+ P(B)+ P(C)). In fact, if P(A)+ P(B)+ P(C)> 1, which is quite plausible, that would give a negative probability! The probability of 1- (A\cup B\cup C) is 1- P(A)*P(B)*P(C).

Thanks for the reply HallsofIvy.

I also find the task very confusing. We have already discussed in other thread about this problem, and I already understood it.

I also realized that P(A)+ P(B)+ P(C) can be >1 and their solution is incorrect.

Here is their solution:

33usxed.jpg


D: the target is being hit

\bar{D}: the target is not being hit.

The other thing is all the same.

Thanks again for confirming.

Regards.
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
Back
Top