Choosing two numbers uniformly

  • Thread starter Thread starter E'lir Kramer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Numbers
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating the probability of selecting two numbers uniformly without replacement from the set {0, 1, ..., 10}, specifically the probability that their sum is less than or equal to 10 given that the smallest number is less than or equal to 5. The correct probability is determined to be 2/3 after analyzing the sets A and B, where A represents pairs summing to 10 or less, and B represents pairs where the minimum is 5 or less. The final counts for |A| and |B| are established as 60 and 90, respectively, leading to the conclusion that P(A|B) = |A|/|B| = 60/90 = 2/3.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of combinatorial probability
  • Familiarity with set notation and cardinality
  • Basic knowledge of Haskell programming for enumeration
  • Ability to visualize and interpret outcomes in a grid format
NEXT STEPS
  • Study combinatorial probability concepts in depth
  • Learn about set theory and its applications in probability
  • Explore Haskell for mathematical programming and enumeration techniques
  • Investigate conditional probability and its practical applications
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, statisticians, computer scientists, and anyone interested in probability theory and combinatorial analysis.

E'lir Kramer
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
This is a solved problem and I am having a hard time working through the answer.

Question . Choose two numbers uniformly but without replacement in {0,1,...,10}. What is the probability that the sum is less than or equal to 10 given that the smallest is less than or equal to 5?

Answer.

Draw a picture of $$\Omega = \left\{ 0,1,...,10 \right\}^{2}\; \backslash \;\left\{(i,i) | i = 0,1,...,10 \right\}$$

Comment. This is easy. (Once I figured out that \ means "complement", as opposed to the last author who was using -). It's a 11x11 grid of dots with the bottom-left to top-right diagonal removed. This immediately tells me, for instance, that |\Omega| = 11*11 - 11 = 110.

The outcomes in \Omega all have the same probability. Let also

$$A = \left\{ \omega \;|\; \omega_{1} \neq \omega_{2}, \omega_{1} + \omega_{2} \leq 10 \right\} \quad B = \left\{\omega \;|\; \omega_{1} \neq \omega_{2}, \min\left\{\omega_{1}, \omega_{2}\right\} \leq 5 \right\}$$

The probability we are looking for is \frac{|A \cap B|}{|B|} = \frac{|A|}{|B|}.

Starting to get confused here. It looks like the authors are getting the left side of this equation from the definition of conditional probability; P([A|B]) = P(A \cap B)/P(B), and it just so happens that A is fully within B, so P(A \cap B) = P(A). However, in this author's usage, |X| means "the cardinality of X", and P(B) \neq |B|. However, this kind of makes sense, in a way. Since we are given that the result is in B, B can take the role of the sample space, and the number of ways to achieve the result divided by the size of the sample space does yield the probability we want. So, I'm going to accept this.

Your picture shows that |A| = 10 + 9 + 8 + ... + 1 = 55...

I don't know about the picture showing this, but reasoning does show this: if \omega_{1} = 0, there are 10 ways to be in A. If \omega_{1} = 1, 9 ways. This logic extends to the given formula .

...and that |B| = 10x5 + 4x5 = 70.

What? I'm completely stopped here. My picture doesn't show that. If I draw a vertical line at (5,0) and a horizontal line at (0,5), then dots in the top right quadrant are the only ones not in B, i.e., they are B^{c}. By manually counting I get 20 dots in B^{c}, and |B| = |\Omega| - |B^{c}| = 90.

Moreover, reasoning confirms this. B^{c} = |\left\{6,7,...,10\right\}^{2}| - |\left\{(6,6), (7,7),...,(10,10)\right\}|.



Hence the answer is 55/70.

My answer is 55/90.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I get the same solution as you.

One more way to see it (with a sloppy notation, but I think it should be clear):
B is (0,anything) and (1,anything) and ... and (5,anything) and (6 to 10,0) and (6 to 10,1) and ... (6 to 10,5)
In total, 6*10+5*6=90 elements.
 
Ohh, thanks. I see his thought process now in his answer. Anyway, we are right, and I just confirmed that in Haskell. So I'll email him with the revision.

Haskell program:

Prelude> length [ (i,j) | i <- [0..10], j <- [0..10], i /= j, (i <= 5 || j <= 5)]
90
 
Funny story, but |A| is 60, not 55.

Proof by enumeration:

Prelude> length [ (i,j) | i <- [0..10], j <- [0..10], i /= j, (i + j) <= 10]
60
Prelude> *[ (i,j) | i <- [0..10], j <- [0..10], i /= j, (i + j) <= 10]
[(0,1),(0,2),(0,3),(0,4),(0,5),(0,6),(0,7),(0,8),(0,9),(0,10),(1,0),(1,2),(1,3),(1,4),(1,5),(1,6),(1,7),(1,8),(1,9),(2,0),(2,1),(2,3),(2,4),(2,5),(2,6),(2,7),(2,8),(3,0),(3,1),(3,2),(3,4),(3,5),(3,6),(3,7),(4,0),(4,1),(4,2),(4,3),(4,5),(4,6),(5,0),(5,1),(5,2),(5,3),(5,4),(6,0),(6,1),(6,2),(6,3),(6,4),(7,0),(7,1),(7,2),(7,3),(8,0),(8,1),(8,2),(9,0),(9,1),(10,0)]

The 10 + 9 + 8 + ... + 1 breaks down because when w1 ≥ 6, we don't have to subtract the pairs (6,6) ... (10,10) from our count. They are already subtracted out by virtue of being >10 anyway. Final answer is 60/90 = 2/3
 
Last edited:
Ah, good catch.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K