Probability of a point in a square being 0.5 from perimeter

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating the probability that the straight-line distance between a point on the perimeter of a square (side length 1) and a point inside the square is at most 0.5. The initial approach involved treating the perimeter point as randomly chosen along half of one side, leading to an integral solution of π/8 - 1/12, approximately 0.31. However, the correct interpretation of the problem requires calculating the probability that the distance is at least 0.5, which simplifies the computation to 1 - P(d < 0.5). Numerical simulations corroborated the findings, confirming the solution's validity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic probability concepts
  • Familiarity with integrals and calculus
  • Knowledge of geometric probability
  • Experience with numerical simulations and data analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study geometric probability in two dimensions
  • Learn about integral calculus applications in probability
  • Explore numerical simulation techniques for probability estimation
  • Investigate the properties of random points in geometric shapes
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying probability theory, data analysts, and anyone interested in geometric probability problems.

Nathanael
Homework Helper
Messages
1,650
Reaction score
246

Homework Statement


Consider a square of side length 1. Two points are chosen independently at random such that one is on the perimeter while the other is inside the square. Find the probability that the straight-line distance between the two points is at most 0.5.

2. The attempt at a solution
I assumed that I can just treat the point on the perimeter as if it's chosen at random along half of 1 side (from a corner to a midpoint) because no matter where the random point on the perimeter is chosen, the square can be reoriented (in our imagination) so that it lies on the same line segment (from a corner to the midpoint of a side). I feel I am justified in doing this because reorienting the square should not change the randomness of the point inside the square (because the point in the square is independently random, and also because all possible ways to reorient the square should be equally likely). Is this where I went wrong?

Let me proceed with this assumption.
Call the distance from the corner y. From the above assumption, y ranges from [0, 0.5]
Take a look at my drawing of the situation:

probability.png


I think dy/0.5 = 2dy would be the chance of the random point "being" y (or being within dy of y, or however you should think of it)

So I think the solution to the problem should be \int\limits_0^{0.5} 2A(y)dy

And finally, A(y)=\int\limits_0^{y+0.5} \sqrt{0.25-(y-x)^2}dxThis gives me an answer of π/8-1/12 ≈ 0.31 which seems reasonable, but is apparently incorrect.

(It seems reasonable because at most A(y)=A(1/2)=pi/8≈0.4 and at least A(y)=A(0)=pi/16≈0.2 so the answer should be somewhere between 0.2 and 0.4)

I'm not sure what I did wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nathanael said:
at most 0.5.
Your sketch shows point "y" at one extreme, however, it can be anywhere from the corner to halfway "up." My take, I guarantee nothing.
 
What is the probability that a point would fall into the quarter circle if the point on the perimeter were at the corner?
You seem to have worked out the half-circle problem for when the point falls in the middle.
The relative probability will be ##\int \int d(x,y) p(x) dx dy ##
 
Nathanael said:

Homework Statement


Consider a square of side length 1. Two points are chosen independently at random such that one is on the perimeter while the other is inside the square. Find the probability that the straight-line distance between the two points is at most 0.5.

2. The attempt at a solution
I assumed that I can just treat the point on the perimeter as if it's chosen at random along half of 1 side (from a corner to a midpoint) because no matter where the random point on the perimeter is chosen, the square can be reoriented (in our imagination) so that it lies on the same line segment (from a corner to the midpoint of a side). I feel I am justified in doing this because reorienting the square should not change the randomness of the point inside the square (because the point in the square is independently random, and also because all possible ways to reorient the square should be equally likely). Is this where I went wrong?

Let me proceed with this assumption.
Call the distance from the corner y. From the above assumption, y ranges from [0, 0.5]
Take a look at my drawing of the situation:

View attachment 78854

I think dy/0.5 = 2dy would be the chance of the random point "being" y (or being within dy of y, or however you should think of it)

So I think the solution to the problem should be \int\limits_0^{0.5} 2A(y)dy

And finally, A(y)=\int\limits_0^{y+0.5} \sqrt{0.25-(y-x)^2}dxThis gives me an answer of π/8-1/12 ≈ 0.31 which seems reasonable, but is apparently incorrect.

(It seems reasonable because at most A(y)=A(1/2)=pi/8≈0.4 and at least A(y)=A(0)=pi/16≈0.2 so the answer should be somewhere between 0.2 and 0.4)

I'm not sure what I did wrong.

I get your answer as well; why do you think it is wrong?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nathanael
Hello Nate/Richard :)

Did what you did, found what you found ##{\pi\over 8} - {1\over 12}##.

Corroborated with a rude numerical simulation (16000 x 3 excel numbers :) , 12 times; found 0.30905 +/- 0.00071)

So here's a second one who agrees with you.
What tells you it's wrong ?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nathanael
Oh, wow... The problem asked, what is the probability that the distance will be at least 0.5... o:) arghuhghgrumbles... 13/12 - pi/8

I am very sorry for wasting all your time!
 
Nathanael said:
Oh, wow... The problem asked, what is the probability that the distance will be at least 0.5... o:) arghuhghgrumbles... 13/12 - pi/8

I am very sorry for wasting all your time!

No time wasted at all. Computing 1 - P(d < .05) is by far the easiest way to compute P(d >= 0.5). This is clear at once if you refer back to your diagram.
 
Second Ray. And it was an interesting exercise ! So thumbs up ! :)
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K