Chop a stick randomly into three pieces, Probablity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahmed Abdullah
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Chopping a stick randomly into three pieces involves determining the probability that these pieces can form a triangle, which is governed by the triangle inequality. Assuming a unit length stick, the cuts are represented by two independent uniform variables, X and Y, within the interval [0, 1]. The analysis shows that the lengths of the pieces must satisfy specific inequalities, leading to a calculated probability of 1/4 for forming a triangle. A simulation conducted with 10 repetitions of 1000 trials yielded results consistent with this probability, reinforcing the theoretical findings. Overall, the discussion confirms the mathematical approach and simulation results align with the expected probability.
Ahmed Abdullah
Messages
203
Reaction score
3
Chop a stick randomly into three pieces (by hitting twice with an axe). What is the probablity that these three pieces of stick will form a triangle?

when two sides of a triangle are given the third should be such as to satisfy the following inequallity: a-b<c<a+b

Thx for your response.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Is the following argument correct?
"Without loss of generality, assume the stick is of unit length and let X and Y be the distance along from one end of the stick (denoted 0) that the cuts are made. Clearly, X and Y have independent, continuous uniform distributions on the interval from 0 to 1. Suppose X < Y; the lengths of the three pieces are then given by X, (Y - X) and (1 - Y), and so the triangle inequality yields:

X =< (Y - X) + (1 - Y) = 1 - X, and so X =< 1/2;

(Y - X) =< X + (1 - Y), and so Y =< X + 1/2;

(1 - Y) =< X + (Y - X), and so 1/2 =< Y.

Hence, we can find the probability that the pieces form a triangle when X < Y by integrating the joint pdf of X and Y over the region given by

0 =< X =< 1/2 and 1/2 =< Y =< X + 1/2,

which is a right triangle in the xy-plane with vertices (0, 1/2), (1/2, 1/2) and (1/2, 1). Since the joint pdf is 1 in this region, the integral is the area of this triangle, and so is equal to 1/8.

When Y < X, a symmetric argument shows that the probability that the pieces form a triangle is also 1/8. Since Y = X has probability 0, we can thus conclude that the total probability the pieces form a triangle is

1/8 + 1/8 = 1/4. "
 
Looks pretty good to me.

FWIW I did a simulation of this in Excel. Ten repetitions of 1000 trials gave these numbers of triangles

237 240 245 246 249 256 256 258 269 277

Which suggests you are probably right :smile:
 
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top