MHB Probability to get a chocolate snowman or a chocolate reindeer

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Probability
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :giggle:

$N\in \mathbb{N}$ christmas presents will be distributed. In every gift there is additional either a chocolate snowman or a chocolate reindeer. It will be independent of each other and with the same probability of giving out gifts with a chocolate snowman or chocolate reindeer. So let $X_1, \ldots , X_n$ be independent and Bernoulli-distributed with probability of success $p =\frac{1}{2}$. The event $\{X_j = 1\}$ means that in the $j$th present there is a chocolate reindeer. Let $a_n$ be the probability that at least 60% of the $n$ gifts distributed contains a chocolate reindeer.
(a) Calculate $a_{10}$ explicitly. Enter intermediate steps.
(b) Use the inequality $\displaystyle{P\left [\left |\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^nX_j-p\right |\geq \epsilon\right ]\leq \frac{1}{4n\epsilon^2}}$ from Bernoulli's weak law of large numbers, to estimate $a_{100}$. Does it hold $a_{100}<a_{10}$ ?
(c) Determine $\displaystyle{\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}a_n}$.For (a) we have that \begin{equation*}P(a_{10}\geq 0.6)\Leftrightarrow P\left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^{10} X_i\geq 0.6\cdot 10 \right)\Leftrightarrow P\left(\frac{1}{10}\cdot \sum\limits_{i=1}^{10} X_i\geq 0.6\right)\end{equation*}
Do we have to use the weak law of large numbers $P[|\overline{X}-\mu|\geq \epsilon]\leq \frac{\sigma^2}{n\epsilon^2}$ ?
The expected value of $X_i$ is $\mu=E[X_i]=p=\frac{1}{2}$ and the variance is $\sigma^2=\text{Var}(X_i)=p\cdot (1-p)=\frac{1}{4}$. So we get $$P[|\overline{X}-\mu|\geq \epsilon]\leq \frac{\sigma^2}{n\epsilon^2} \Rightarrow P\left [\left |\overline{X}-\frac{1}{2}\right |\geq \epsilon\right ]\leq \frac{\frac{1}{4}}{10\cdot \epsilon^2}\Rightarrow P\left [\overline{X}\geq \epsilon+\frac{1}{2}\right ]\leq \frac{\frac{1}{4}}{10\cdot \epsilon^2}$$ For $\epsilon=0.1$ we get $$P\left [\overline{X}\geq 0.6\right ]\leq \frac{\frac{1}{4}}{10\cdot 0.1^2} \Rightarrow P\left [\overline{X}\geq 0.6\right ]\leq 2.5$$
This cannot be correct, can it?

:unsure:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi mathmari,

Great job rewriting the condition as $a_{10} = \text{Pr}\left(\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{10}X_{i}\geq 6\right).$ Your attempt to use Bernoulli's weak law of large numbers is also good. Note, though, that Bernoulli only gives an upper bound for $a_{n}$, so it will not allow us to calculate $a_{10}$ explicitly.

To proceed, expand your previous equation one step further to $$a_{10} = \text{Pr}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{10}X_{i}\geq 6\right) = \text{Pr}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{10}X_{i} = 6\right) + \text{Pr}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{10}X_{i} = 7\right) + \cdots + \text{Pr}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{10}X_{i} = 10\right).$$ To calculate each of the 5 terms on the right, consider using the Binomial Distribution, which calculates the probability of $k$ successes in a sequence of $n$ independent Bernoulli experiments.

Nice work so far. Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions.

Edit: Changed $\text{Pr}(a_{10}\geq0.6)$ to $a_{10}$ because $a_{n}$ is, by definition, the probability of at least 60% success in $n$ trials
 
Last edited:
GJA said:
Great job rewriting the condition as $a_{10} = \text{Pr}\left(\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{10}X_{i}\geq 6\right).$ Your attempt to use Bernoulli's weak law of large numbers is also good. Note, though, that Bernoulli only gives an upper bound for $a_{n}$, so it will not allow us to calculate $a_{10}$ explicitly.

To proceed, expand your previous equation one step further to $$a_{10} = \text{Pr}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{10}X_{i}\geq 6\right) = \text{Pr}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{10}X_{i} = 6\right) + \text{Pr}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{10}X_{i} = 7\right) + \cdots + \text{Pr}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{10}X_{i} = 10\right).$$ To calculate each of the 5 terms on the right, consider using the Binomial Distribution, which calculates the probability of $k$ successes in a sequence of $n$ independent Bernoulli experiments.

Nice work so far. Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions.

Edit: Changed $\text{Pr}(a_{10}\geq0.6)$ to $a_{10}$ because $a_{n}$ is, by definition, the probability of at least 60% success in $n$ trials

I got it! Now I am able to solve all the questions.. Thank you! (Sun)
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top