Statistics Question: Probability of Diamonds in a Deck

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jamin2112
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Statistics
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating probabilities related to drawing cards from a standard deck. For part (a), the probability of drawing three diamonds is calculated as (13/52)*(12/51)*(11/50), resulting in 11/850. Part (b) involves finding the probability of drawing no diamonds, calculated similarly with the probabilities of drawing non-diamonds. Part (c) is clarified as not simply the opposite of part (a), as it requires considering scenarios where not all cards are diamonds, which leads to confusion about how to approach the calculation. Overall, the participants engage in exploring the nuances of probability calculations for these scenarios.
Jamin2112
Messages
973
Reaction score
12

Homework Statement



Three cards are dealt from a well-shuffled deck.

(a) Find the chance that all of the cards are diamonds.
(b) Find the chance that none of the cards are diamonds.
(b) Find the chance that the cards are not all diamonds.

Homework Equations



Not sure ...

The Attempt at a Solution



There are 52 cards in a deck. The chance of one being a diamond is 13/52. If you know that one card you were dealt is a diamond, then the chance of another being a diamond is 12/51, since there is 1 less card and 1 less diamond. And if you that two cards are diamonds, then the chance of a third being a diamond is 11/50. The chance of 3 cards being diamonds is therefore (13/52)*(12/51)*(11/50). Part (b) can be solved similarly. This time the chance is 39/52, then 38/51, then 37/50, and the chance of the three happening is (39/52)*(38/51)*(37/51). Part (c) is simply the opposite of part (a).

Am I right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It sounds like you have this all worked out to me. You have the probabilities for each stage correct, and multiplying the three together should lower the probability to show the probability of the two states, and then three. It looks good to me.

I came up with 11/850 for part(a) using that method.

I'm not sure that I entirely understand part(c).
"Find the chance that the cards are not all diamonds."

Sounds like this one is a little different. If the first card is a diamond, so it the second, but the third is not, it would still satisfy this condition right? I think this one is asking "What are the chances that none of the cards will be a diamond, and all of the cards will not be diamonds"

I don't think it's the opposite of part(a) as you mentioned.
 
Last edited:
I'm just confused because this chapter was supposed to be about adding things that are mutually exclusive.
 
I don't know what the chapter was supposed to be about, but I don't really see any other solution.

Not all the cards are diamonds...

So let's think of this in three cases.
In case 1, let's say the card cannot be a diamond
(3/4) right?

Let's also assume that because cases 1 and 2 will fulfill the "not all be diamonds" requirement, case three can be anything.
(1/1)

so what would case 2 have to be?
(3/4)(X/X)(1/1)
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top