Regarding probability bound of flip coins

f24u7
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Suppose you flip a fair coin 10,000 time how can you characterize the distribution of the occurrence of head?

From the textbook, it says that P[head>n/2 + k√n] < e^(-k^2)/2, why is that and what is the derivation? What theorem is this, we had only learn Bernoulli distribution and Chebyshev so far, it seem odd that the textbook would jump to such a conclusion without rigorous proof.

Thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I haven't worked on it, but it looks like an approximation for the tail of the Bernoulli distribution for a large sample.
 
thanks for the reply, could you give me a hint for how would you go about deriving this
 
f24u7 said:
thanks for the reply, could you give me a hint for how would you go about deriving this

The first step is to approximate the tail by an integral.
 
f24u7 said:
we had only learn Bernoulli distribution and Chebyshev so far

I haven't worked on the problem either. I agree that the result is not a simple consequence of the bernoulli distribution and the Chebyshev inequality, but you might be able to prove it from them with some work.

The mean of N independent tosses of a fair coin (landing "0" or "1") is the sum of the mean of the results of the individual tosses and the variance is the sum of the individual variances. So you have a mean of N/2 and variance of N(1/2)(1-1/2). To prove the result from the Chebyshev inequality, you'd need to work out an inequality relating 1/x^2 and e^(-x^2).
 
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