Did I just create a coin tossing paradox?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cgskook
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Paradox
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a proposed paradox involving the probabilities of obtaining at least one tail when tossing two indistinguishable coins into separate buckets versus a single bucket. The inquiry examines whether the probabilities should be the same in both scenarios and explores the implications of distinguishability on the outcomes.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a scenario with two coins and claims a 3/4 probability of getting at least one tail when the coins are distinguishable and placed in separate buckets.
  • The same participant argues that when the coins are indistinguishable and placed in a single bucket, the probability changes to 2/3 for getting at least one tail, suggesting a paradox.
  • Another participant questions the initial example by asking why a TT outcome is not included in the first scenario.
  • This participant also points out that even if the coins are indistinguishable, there are still two ways to achieve a HT outcome, implying that the reasoning may be flawed.
  • Several posts diverge into discussions about philosophical concepts, including references to "Schrödinger's cat" and "Universal consciousness," which seem to stray from the original mathematical focus of the thread.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the initial probability calculations and the implications of distinguishability. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views on the validity of the paradox.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions about the assumptions made regarding the outcomes of the coin tosses and the definitions of distinguishability in the context of the problem.

cgskook
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Gibson's Coin Paradox:

You have 2 coins with you. There is absolutely no way that you can tell the difference between them. The coins are fair, meaning the chances of getting heads is equal to the chance of getting tails so a 50% vs. 50% chance.

You put on a blindfold and drop the coins, one in each hand, into 2 separate buckets.
What is the chance that there will be at least 1 tail in your results?
The outcomes are the following:

Bucket 1: Bucket 2:
H H
H T *
T H *
T T *

The bottom 3 results satisfy the rule of there being at least one tail, there are 4 possibilities, therefore it is a 3/4 chance that there will be at least 1 tail.

However*:

You now conduct a similar experiment using only one bucket and the same coins. Now you are going to drop the coins into the same bucket using the same method as before.
The outcomes are the following:

Bucket 1:
H and H
Opposite *
T and T *

Now because the coins are indistinguishable order does not matter in the results. This combines 2 of the values into one making there only be 3 possibilities. Now 2 of the results satisfy the rule of there being at least 1 tail, there are 3 outcomes, therefore it is a 2/3 chance that there will be at least 1 tail.

Can we agree that the probabilities of these should be the same? And that's where the paradox lies, because the probabilities are not the same.

If there is any way to distinguish the coins your are more likely (3/4) to satisfy the "at least one tail rule" than if they coins are not distinguishable (2/3).

Thoughts, opinions, and comments ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
In your first example why is there not a TT outcome?

For your second, even thou you cannot distinguish between the coins there is still 2 ways to get a HT. So even if you cannot tell HT from TH they remain 2 possible outcomes.
 
phinds said:
I don't know what you're talking about but I'd guess you're skating on thin ice here. This is a physics forum, not a religious one.

LOL I am the most strongly opinionated atheist that you will ever know. It's a theory that I have considered, not a religious belief. Look up "Schrödinger's cat"
 
cgskook said:
Have you ever heard of Universal consciousness?

Not since they invented the Internet.
 
cgskook said:
LOL I am the most strongly opinionated atheist that you will ever know. It's a theory that I have considered, not a religious belief. Look up "Schrödinger's cat"

Are you referring to the idea that the apparent multiplicity of selves is an illusion? Is there more to it than a purely metaphysical interpretation of quantum mechanics?
 
cgskook said:
Have you ever heard of Universal consciousness?
Thread locked.

Pending moderation? Probably not. It's not a coin toss.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
9K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K