MHB Probability of Getting 3 A's & 2 B's in 5 Rounds

  • Thread starter Thread starter oriel1
  • Start date Start date
oriel1
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
There is lucky machine with 3 results (letters):
A,B,C
P(A)=0.2 (Probabilty to get A)
P(B)=0.3 "" "" ""
P(C)=0.5
Each round you get just one letter.
You played 5 times.
What the probability that you got three times "A" and two times "B".

i thinked to do that:
$$0.2^{3}$$$$\cdot*$$$$0.3^{2}$$$$\frac{{5}!}{{2}!\left({3}\right)!}$$
$$\frac{{5}!}{{2}!\left({3}\right)!}$$ is the number of options to get that result.
But it doesn't make any sense. because $$\frac{{5}!}{{2}!\left({3}\right)!}$$=10 and if the probabilty is higher then 0.1 the result will be >1 and it can't happen.
There is any good solution for this problem ? binomial distribution or something?
Thank you.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hi oriel,

Your calculation looks good to me! You found the probability of one sequence of 3 A's and 2 B's, then multiplied by the number of sequences. Indeed if $(.2^3 \cdot .3^2)$ were greater than .1, then we would have a problem, but it isn't. If you multiply your answer out, we get a valid probability. This isn't proof that the answer is correct, but it isn't outside the range of a probability calculation.
 
I was typing an answer but then I saw Jameson's post and he basically gave the answer. Your calculation is fine! Now, I want to add a comment to your final question: can we use a binomial distribution here? The answer is no. The binomial distribution can only be used in experiments where you have two possible outcomes (a failure and a success). Here you have three. However, you can use the multinomial distribution which is a generalization of the binomial distribution for $k$ different outcomes. If you're interested then I suggest you read the wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinomial_distribution

You'll notice that your calculation is exactly how the probability would be calculated if you had explicitly used the multinomial distribution.

Finally, the probability is indeed small ... do you find the result surprising?
 
Last edited:
Jameson said:
Hi oriel,

Your calculation looks good to me! You found the probability of one sequence of 3 A's and 2 B's, then multiplied by the number of sequences. Indeed if $(.2^3 \cdot .3^2)$ were greater than .1, then we would have a problem, but it isn't. If you multiply your answer out, we get a valid probability. This isn't proof that the answer is correct, but it isn't outside the range of a probability calculation.
Siron said:
I was typing an answer but then I saw Jameson's post and he basically gave the answer. Your calculation is fine! Now, I want to add a comment to your final question: can we use a binomial distribution here? The answer is no. The binomial distribution can only be used in experiments where you have two possible outcomes (a failure and a success). Here you have three. However, you can use the multinomial distribution which is a generalization of the binomial distribution for $k$ different outcomes. If you're interested then I suggest you read the wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinomial_distribution

You'll notice that your calculation is exactly how the probability would be calculated if you had explicitly used the multinomial distribution.

Finally, the probability is indeed small ... do you find the result surprising?
Thank you very much for that clear explanation. I appreciate that.
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top