Statistically independent confusion

alibabamd
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
hey guys,
tell me how i would approach this:
a communication system sends signals from 'a' to 'b' over 2 parallel paths. If each path has 2 repeaters with failure probablities X for the first path repeaters ,Y for the second path repeaters then what would be the probability of signal not arriving at all. The repeaters are statistically independent.

I thought it would be X*X+Y*Y.
However, i thought that if one repeater fails it won't matter if the second one fails. So they can't be statsically independent right? So how would one go about doing this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Path 1 success: (1-X)^2
Path 1 failure: 1 - (1-X)^2

Path 2 success: (1-Y)^2
Path 2 failure: 1 - (1-Y)^2

Overall failure probability: (1 - (1-X)^2) * (1 - (1-Y)^2)
 
ok so you're also taking them as statistically independent right, its just that i was thnking if the first repeater fails doesn't that automatically mean the second won't transmit correctly... thanks for the quick reply though
 
I understand what you're saying and I think my formulas address that. In calculating the failure rate I'm saying if either repeater fails the link as a whole fails.

By multiplying the failure rates of both links, I'm saying that if either link succeeds the message gets through.

In general to calculate two independent failures in an AND configuration as in the two repeaters in series, you have to multiply the success probabilities and subtract from one to get the failure rate. To calculate failure rates in parallel or in and OR configuration, multiply the failure probabilities.
 
If "2 parallel paths" means what I think it means, the only way a signal won't go through is if BOTH repeaters fail. As long as at least one works the signal will go through.
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
2K
Back
Top