Divisibility Probability of Randomly Selected Natural Numbers

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the probability that a randomly selected number from the first 120 natural numbers is not divisible by 3, 4, or 6, but is divisible by 2 or 5. Participants note that a uniform probability measure on natural numbers does not exist, but they explore the problem using a uniform distribution from the set {1,...,N}. They identify redundancies in the conditions, particularly that if a number is not divisible by 3, it cannot be divisible by 6. The calculations provided lead to a discrepancy, with the expected answer being 14/60 instead of the calculated 31/60, prompting further examination of the approach taken. The discussion emphasizes the importance of correctly interpreting the conditions and their implications on the probability calculations.
Alexsandro
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
Could Someone help with this question ?

What is the probability that a number of the set \Omega, first 120 natural numbers {1,2,3, ... , 120}, picked at random is not divisible by any of the number 3, 4, 6 but is divisible by 2 or 5 ?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
To make this rgorous you wuld need a uniform probability measure on the natrual numbers. none such exists.

however, the next best thing is this: suppose that you pick at random with uniform prob from the set {1,..,N} what are the chances.

Notice the redundancy of your requirements: if a number is not divisible by 3 it is certainly not divisible by 6.

roughly 1/2 are divisible by 2, 1/5 by 5 and how many by both? now think about those that are not divisible be 3 and 4.
 
matt grime said:
To make this rgorous you wuld need a uniform probability measure on the natrual numbers. none such exists.

however, the next best thing is this: suppose that you pick at random with uniform prob from the set {1,..,N} what are the chances.

Notice the redundancy of your requirements: if a number is not divisible by 3 it is certainly not divisible by 6.

roughly 1/2 are divisible by 2, 1/5 by 5 and how many by both? now think about those that are not divisible be 3 and 4.

___________
So, I am going to show as I answered to this question.

Consider the events and \Omega = {1,2,3, ..., 120}, natural numbers:
A = {integers which are divisible by 3}, with P(A) = 1/3;
B = {integers which are divisible by 4}, with P(B) = 1/4;
C = {integers which are divisible by 6}, with P(C) = 1/6;
D = {integers which are divisible by 2}, with P(D) = 1/2;
E = {integers which are divisible by 5}, with P(E) = 1/5.

I need to find the probability of the set: A^cB^cC^c(D \cup E).
Let A^cB^cC^c(D \cup E) = (A^cB^cC^cD) \cup (A^cB^cC^cE).

and

(A^cB^cC^cD) \cap (A^cB^cC^cE) = (A^cB^cC^cDE) = DE - ABCDE.

then

P(A^cB^cC^cDE) = P(DE) - P(ABCDE) = 1/10 - 1/60 = 1/12.
P(DE) = 1/10;
P(ABCDE) = 1/60.

and

P(A^cB^cC^cD) = P(D) - P(ABCD) = 1/2 - 1/12 = 5/12.
P(A^cB^cC^cE) = P(E) - P(ABCE) = 1/5 - 1/60 = 11/60.

=>

(A^cB^cC^cD) \cup (A^cB^cC^cE) = P(A^cB^cC^cD) + P(A^cB^cC^cE) - P(A^cB^cC^cDE) = 5/12 + 11/60 - 1/12 = 31/60

However, the right answer is 14/60. I committed some error? Where I can have wrong
 
Haven't looked through your working but shouldn't you neglect the "not divisible by 6" condition ? If a number is not divisible by 3, it won't be divisible by 6. That is redundant.

Edit : just noticed this was already pointed out by matt.
 
Last edited:
I didn't neglect the redundance

Gokul43201 said:
Haven't looked through your working but shouldn't you neglect the "not divisible by 6" condition ? If a number is not divisible by 3, it won't be divisible by 6. That is redundant.

Edit : just noticed this was already pointed out by matt.

__________
I know that. I didn't neglect this redundance. The result is the same, not neglecting the redundance. I redo the calculus. But there is something wrong that I didn't find out yet.
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
723
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
3K