Undergrad Combinatorics & probability density

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the probability of combinations when drawing balls from two boxes, each containing different numbered balls. The initial query raises the challenge of determining probabilities with unknown quantities of balls, suggesting an approximation to sampling with replacement. Participants clarify that discrete probability density is not a standard term, recommending the use of probability mass functions (PMF) or cumulative distribution functions (CDF) instead. The application of a finite state Markov chain is proposed as a potential modeling approach for analyzing the combinations. The conversation also highlights the importance of accurately defining the number of balls drawn to assess the complexity of combinations effectively.
Cathr
Messages
67
Reaction score
3
Suppose we have two boxes, each containing three types of balls. On each ball there's written a number:
First box: 1, 2, 3
Second box: 4, 5, 6
We don't know how many balls of each type there are, but we know the probability of taking out a specific one, so that we can make a graph showing the discrete probability density of each ball.
Knowing the probability of each number, can we calculate the probability of combinations of numbers?
Let's say if we take a random number from each box, how can we calculate the probability of the combination?
And what if, for example, we take out 3 balls from the first box and 3 from the other at once? (Here we must consider two cases: when the numbers may repeat themselves and when they are all different).

Thanks for any help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you sampling with or without replacement from each box? If without replacement, not knowing the underlying number of balls is going to be a problem (unless, of course, you can assure yourself it is sufficiently large and hence can be approximated by sampling with replacement...)

There's a lot of ways of attacking this when sampling with replacement -- drawing a directed graph of the process to model it as a finite state Markov chain main be enlightening.

Cathr said:
We don't know how many balls of each type there are, but we know the probability of taking out a specific one, so that we can make a graph showing the discrete probability density of each ball.

Loosely speaking there is no such thing as a "discrete probability density". You can plot a PMF. Or you could work with a CDF here, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.
 
StoneTemplePython said:
Are you sampling with or without replacement from each box? If without replacement, not knowing the underlying number of balls is going to be a problem (unless, of course, you can assure yourself it is sufficiently large and hence can be approximated by sampling with replacement...)

There's a lot of ways of attacking this when sampling with replacement -- drawing a directed graph of the process to model it as a finite state Markov chain main be enlightening.

Loosely speaking there is no such thing as a "discrete probability density". You can plot a PMF. Or you could work with a CDF here, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.

Thanks for your response!

It can be approximated to sampling with replacement - we may imagine that boxes are infinitely large. What interests me is trying to find how the probability of picking each number separately can influence the probability of combinations of the numbers. Is there a formula that I can use? Can a finite state Markov chain model be applied here? I am not familiar with it at all, but if it's the case I will read more about it.

Also I spotted a mistake in the last sentence of the problem, when I considered that we pick 3 balls out of 3 from each box and they are all different. Obviously there's just one possible case, so I should have said that we pick 2 balls out of 3, here we may have more cases. Then the number of different balls in each box can be increased - to 10, 100 but that's more complicated because we would have more combinations.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K