MHB Binomial distribution regarding: (≤, >, etc.)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating probabilities for a binomial random variable with parameters p = 0.2 and n = 20. The user initially struggles with understanding cumulative probabilities from the binomial table, particularly for P(X ≤ 3) and P(X = 6). Clarifications indicate that cumulative values must be used to derive specific probabilities, such as P(X = 6) being calculated as the difference between cumulative probabilities. For P(X > 10), the correct approach is to subtract the cumulative probability up to 10 from 1. The final point emphasizes the importance of correctly defining the range when calculating probabilities, leading to the correct result for P(6 ≤ X ≤ 11).
iamlorde
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Question is as follows:

Let X be a binomial random variable with p = 0 2 .
and n = 20. Use the binomial table in Appendix A to determine
the following probabilities.
(a) P(X ≤ 3) (b) P(X > 10)
(c) P(X = 6) (d) P(6 ≤ X ≤ 11)

NK7cCqq.gif


(a) = 0.4114 is the answer. Yet all I see from this answer is that X is simple equal to "0.4114". If it is "X ≤ 3" shouldn't "0.2061", "0.0692", and "0.0115" contribute to the answer somehow because they are "<" smaller than 3?

I feel like I may be missing a fundamental element here. How do I proceed with these in general? My logic seems flawed on this matter.

For example: (c) = 0.9133-0.8042=0.1091; how is this possible. Why isn't this straight out "0.9133", the value directly next to #6?

Please enlighten me on this matter. Thank you.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The numbers in the column of your table are cumulative, and so for a) you would simply read from the table to get:

a) $$P(x\le3)=0.4114$$

And for c), you would do the following:

c) $$P(x=6)=P(x\le6)-P(x\le5)=0.9133-0.8042=0.1091$$

How do you now suppose you would do parts b) and d)?
 
So, I would think,

(b) P(X > 10) = [!not](everything up to and including 10) = 1-0.9994 = 0.0006

(d) P(6 ≤ X ≤ 11) :

X is between 6 and 11, AND it includes them both, so I choose one above 11, so 12 which is: 1.0000. Then I choose one below 6, so 5, so that I can include 6. Hence: 0.8042.

Now I subtract: 1 - 0.8042 = 0.1958 (YET THIS IS FALSE)
My solution says: 0.1957?
 
Your solution for (d) is almost correct. The problem is that you've calculated $\mathbb{P}(6 \leq X \leq 12)$ because you've also included $12$. We have

$$\mathbb{P}(6 \leq X \leq 11) = \mathbb{P}(X \in \{6,7,8,9,10,11\}) = \mathbb{P}(X \leq 11) - \mathbb{P}(X \leq 5) = 0.1957$$.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top