MHB Probability of identifying both defective fuses in four or less tests

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the probability of identifying both defective fuses within four tests from a set of six fuses, two of which are defective. The original poster believes the probability is 2/5, while the textbook states it is 7/15. Participants suggest using the complement rule and consider additional cases, including the scenario where all four tested fuses are good, which was initially overlooked. By correctly accounting for all possible combinations, including the missed case, the probability is confirmed to be 7/15, aligning with the textbook answer. The collaborative effort highlights the importance of thoroughness in probability calculations.
boosewell
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
This question is driving me crazy.

According to the textbook, the answer is 7/15, but I get 2/5. If anyone can tell me where I am going wrong I would be much obliged

Here is the question

Six fuses, of which two are defective and four are good, are to be tested one after another in random order until both defective fuses are identified.
Find the probability that the number of fuses that will be tested is four or less.

And this is my answer

Assuming two fuses need to be tested, the combination should be

Bad – bad = 2/6 x 1/5 = 2/30 = 1/15
Assuming three fuses need to be tested, the combinations should be
Bad – good – bad = 2/6 x 4/5 x 1 /4 = 8/120 =2/30 = 1/15
Good - bad – bad = 4/6 x 2/5 x 1 /4 = 8/120 =2/30 = 1/15

Assuming four fuses need to be tested, the combinations should be
Bad – good -good – bad = 2/6 x 4/5 x 3 /4 x 1/3 =24/360 = 1/15
Good - bad -good – bad = 4/6 x2/5 x 3 /4 x 1/3 =24/360 = 1/15
Good - good -bad – bad = 4/6 x3/5 x2 /4 x 1/3 =24/360 = 1/15

1/15 + 1/15 + 1/15 + 1/15 + 1/15 + 1/15 = 6/15

And I know that it is wrong because the textbook says so, but I can't think why.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Re: Discrete ramdom variables

Hi boosewell,

Welcome to MHB! Glad you found us! Please let me know if you have any questions.

Your calculations look good, but maybe incomplete. What about the case of testing 3 fuses? :)
 
Re: Discrete ramdom variables

We could take another approach, and use the complement's rule. This way we need only consider two case: that it takes 5 tests or it takes 6 tests.

In order for it to take 6 tests, we would need to have 2 groups of fuses...the first group would consist of 5 fuses with one bad among them, and the second group would contain 1 bad fuse. How many ways can we arrange the fuses like this? We'll call this $N_6$.

In order for it to take 5 tests, we would need to have 3 groups of fuses...the first group would have 3 good and 1 bad, the second group would have 1 bad, and the third group would have 1 good. How many ways can we arrange the fuses like this? We'll call this $N_5$.

Then we consider how many total ways there are to arrange the 6 fuses. We'll call this $N$.

Then we can use the complement's rule...we know it is certain it will either take 4 or fewer tests or it will take more than 4 tests...and so we may state:

$$P(X\le4)+\frac{N_5+N_6}{N}=1$$

Hence:

$$P(X\le4)=1-\frac{N_5+N_6}{N}$$

Correctly calculating $N_5,\,N_6,\,N$ will yield:

$$P(X\le4)=\frac{7}{15}$$

I wanted to leave calculating those values for you to try first. :)
 
Re: Discrete ramdom variables

Bingo !

Thanks MarkFL

and, because my earlier thank you post appears to have gone astray, thanks as well to Jameson.

I think that I am going to enjoy this site.
 
Re: Discrete ramdom variables

Doh. Well my reading comprehension could use some work because you wrote about the 3 fuse case in your post. I missed it in between the lines breaks. MarkFL's way definitely works but so should your way. Let me see where the error is. You definitely have the right idea, so it's something small...
 
Thanks to the help of I like Serena, here is what we missed.

There is also the 4 case of GGGG. If you identify all 4 good fuses, then the remaining 2 must be bad. The probability of this is $\frac{4}{6}\frac{3}{5}\frac{2}{4}\frac{1}{3}=\frac{1}{15}$. Now the answer adds up to 7/15 as the book indicates. :)
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top