I Need closed form for a Binomial series

issacnewton
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
37
Hello
I was solving a problem in probability. Here is the statement.
Seven terminals in an on-line system are attached to a communications line to the central computer. Exactly four of these terminals are ready to transmit a message. Assume that each terminal is equally likely to be in the ready state.Let ##X## be the random variable whose value is the number of terminals polled until the first ready terminal is located.
(a) What values may ##X## assume ?
(b) What is the probability that ##X## will assume each of these values? Assume that terminals are polled in a fixed sequence without repetition.
(c) Suppose the communication line has ##m## terminals attached of which ##n## are ready to transmit. Show that ##X## can assume only the values ##i=1,2,\cdots,m-n+1## with ##P[X =i] = \binom{m-i}[n-i}/\binom{m}{n}##. The problem is from the book Probability, Statistics, and Queueing Theory: With Computer Science Applications by Arnold Allen. The problem can be seen in this google book review. Now I have been able to solve this problem. Though its not asked here, wanted to find the ##E(X)## for case (c). So we would have $$\sum_{i=1}^{m-n+1}i \frac{\binom{m-i}[n-i}} {\binom{m}{n}}$$
I have not been able to get this into some nice closed form. Can anybody provide guidance ? Also there seems to be some problem with the latex command \binom{}{}. Its not working for me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
IssacNewton said:
Also there seems to be some problem with the latex command \binom{}{}. Its not working for me.
You have a '[' before the n-i that should be a '{'.

$$P[X =i] = \binom{m-i}{n-i}/\binom{m}{n}$$
$$\sum_{i=1}^{m-n+1}i \frac{\binom{m-i}{n-i}} {\binom{m}{n}}$$
 
Last edited:
Thanks FactChecker. So do you have any idea how to do summation here. Any closed form ?
 
IssacNewton said:
Thanks FactChecker. So do you have any idea how to do summation here. Any closed form ?
Nope. I don't see any way to simplify it (other than possibly factoring out the denominator). If I had Maple or something that could do symbolic math, I might experiment a little, but I don't have Maple.
 
IssacNewton said:
Thanks FactChecker. So do you have any idea how to do summation here. Any closed form ?

The problem can instead by interpreted as an absorbing state Markov Chain. Consider using the expression:

##E[X] \approx \frac{m}{n} = \frac{1}{\frac{n}{m}}##

Technically this is an upper bound. If you have a lot of terminals, and a 'semi balanced' mix of working and non-working ones, then this becomes an extremely tight bound that approximates the answer.

If you are concerned with a small number of terminals, you could tighten the bound using a finite geometric series setup where ##p = 1 - \frac{n}{m}##, and ##E[X] \approx \frac{1-p^{m-n+1}}{1-p}## but I find the earlier expression rather nicer, and note that in the limit they are the same.

- - - -
Note the summation and probabilities written by isaacNewton and FactChecker have a typo in it that makes the probabilities not sum to one. It should read:

##\sum_{i=1}^{m-n+1}i \frac{\binom{m-i}{n-1}} {\binom{m}{n}}##

Where we have n - 1 not n - i in the binomial coefficient in the numerator.
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker
StoneTemplePython, thanks for pointing out the mistake of ##n-i##. Your explanation about the bounds makes sense. I will have to modify my solution now, as I was helping a student.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top