A probability question based on batting averages,

  • Thread starter Thread starter shadedude123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Probability
AI Thread Summary
Batter A has a batting average of .320, while Batter B has a batting average of .280. To find the probability that neither gets a hit, the probabilities of each not getting a hit are calculated as 0.680 for A and 0.720 for B. Multiplying these probabilities gives a combined probability of approximately 0.4896, or 48.96%. The calculations were confirmed as correct, providing reassurance for the original poster's understanding. This illustrates the application of independent probabilities in batting averages.
shadedude123
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Batter A has a batting average (probability of getting a hit) of .320. Batter B has a
batting average of .280. If both of them come to bat during an inning, calculate the
probability that neither one gets a hit. Assume that A getting a hit is independent of B
getting a hit.

My attempt:

I said that .320 is basically 320/1000 and that's 8/25 and .280 is 7/25. I said that the probability of them not getting a hit is 17/25 for Batter A and 18/25 for batter B. And I multiplied both of em to get 48.96% chance of both of em missing. Is this right? I'm not really a math type person but this question is for one of my science classes. Thanks for any help :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
shadedude123 said:
Batter A has a batting average (probability of getting a hit) of .320. Batter B has a
batting average of .280. If both of them come to bat during an inning, calculate the
probability that neither one gets a hit. Assume that A getting a hit is independent of B
getting a hit.

My attempt:

I said that .320 is basically 320/1000 and that's 8/25 and .280 is 7/25. I said that the probability of them not getting a hit is 17/25 for Batter A and 18/25 for batter B. And I multiplied both of em to get 48.96% chance of both of em missing. Is this right? I'm not really a math type person but this question is for one of my science classes. Thanks for any help :)

100% correct.
 
Thanks a lot :)
 
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\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...

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
385
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
5K
Replies
41
Views
5K
Back
Top