MHB Calculating Geometric Probability on a Round Table

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the geometric probability of a coin landing entirely within a smaller circle on a round table. The original poster calculated the probability as 81/2500, considering the area of the large circle as the sample space and adjusting the area of the small circle to account for the coin's radius. However, other participants pointed out that the correct approach should factor in the coin's radius, leading to a different probability calculation. The correct probability should be based on the adjusted areas, resulting in a final answer of (9/49)^2. The conversation highlights the importance of accurately interpreting the dimensions involved in geometric probability problems.
Yankel
Messages
390
Reaction score
0
Hello all,

I have a question related to geometric probability. I think I solved it, but not sure, would appreciate your opinion.

We are given a round table with a radius of 50cm. At the center of this table there is another circle, with a radius of 10cm. A coin with a radius of 1cm is thrown on the table. Assuming that it landed on the table, what is the probability that the coin (the entire coin) is within the small circle ?

I said that the area of the big circle is

\[2500\pi\]

this is the sample space.

The set of the required event is the points creating the area of the small circle, but going 1cm inside, to allow the entire coin to be inside, so it is:

\[81\pi\]

Therefore the probability is:

\[\frac{81}{2500}\]

Am I correct ?

Thank you !
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I would be inclined to say:

$$P(x)=\frac{\pi\left(10-\dfrac{1}{2}\right)^2}{\pi\left(50-\dfrac{1}{2}\right)^2}=\left(\frac{19}{99}\right)^2$$
 
Not sure where Mark's $\dfrac12$ is coming from. The question says that the radius (not the diameter!) of the coin is 1cm. So I would give the answer as $\left(\dfrac9{49}\right)^2$. This assumes that the coin has to land so that it is entirely on the table. The OP's answer $\dfrac{81}{2500}$ assumes that it is allowed to land so that it precariously overlaps the edge of the table.
 
Yes, I misread radius as diameter...oops. :)
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top