Probability Problem (maybe on Negative Binomial Distribution)

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around a probability problem involving a salesperson at an automobile dealership who aims to sell three cars, with a 10% success rate per hour. The calculation for the probability of selling the last car at the 8th hour is detailed, yielding a result of 0.0124. For the second part, the probability of working more than 8 hours, calculated as the likelihood of selling fewer than three cars in that timeframe, totals 0.962. The calculations utilize combinations and the negative binomial distribution framework. Overall, the process appears correct, and the values seem reasonable within the context of the problem.
Debdut
Messages
18
Reaction score
2
The following problem is from "Probability and Statistics in Engineering - Hines, Montgomery"

A potential customer enters an automobile dealership every hour. The probability of a salesperson concluding a transaction is 0.10. She is determined to keep working until she has sold three cars. What is the probability that she will have to work exactly 8 hours? More than 8 hours?

Soln: I have done it. Don't know whether the process is correct. Also I think the answer is low in value. Want to get your opinion.

She will have to work exactly 8 hours means - She will sell the last car at 8th hour and stop working.

The probability of selling a car at 8th hour (any hour) = 0.1. Thus we have got the last hour calculated.
We have the preceding 7 hours. Two cars will be sold at any two of the 7 hours and for remaining 5 hours no car will be sold.
Probability of that = 7C2 . (0.1)2 . (0.9)5 = 0.124
Total Probability = 0.124 . 0.1 (for last hour) = 0.0124

I am trying the 2nd part.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
OK, here's the 2nd part -

P(working more than 8 hours) = P(selling less than 3 cars in 8 hours)
= P(selling 0 car in 8 hours) + P(selling 1 car in 8 hours) + P(selling 2 cars in 8 hours)
= 8C0 . (0.1)0 . (0.9)8 + 8C1 . (0.1)1 . (0.9)7 + 8C2 . (0.1)2 . (0.9)6
= 0.962
 
It all looks right to me.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
20K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K