I Need closed form for a Binomial series

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a probability problem involving seven terminals, four of which are ready to transmit messages. The random variable X represents the number of terminals polled until the first ready terminal is found, with specific values and probabilities being derived. Participants seek a closed form for the expected value E(X) based on a summation involving binomial coefficients, but face challenges in simplifying it. An alternative approach using an absorbing state Markov Chain is suggested, providing an upper bound for E(X). A correction is noted regarding a typo in the probabilities that affects their summation to one, emphasizing the importance of accurate binomial coefficients.
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.
 
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top