The probability distribution function of

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the probability distribution function for the number of red chips drawn from two urns containing red and white chips. The user initially calculated the probability for various outcomes of red chips drawn, arriving at a probability of 2/9 for one red chip, but found a discrepancy with the book's answer of 2/90. Upon further analysis, the user identified that the book contained a typographical error in the probabilities listed for the outcomes. The user confirmed their calculations were correct, noting that all cases must sum to 1, and concluded that the book's appendix was incorrect. This highlights the importance of verifying answers against multiple sources.
relinquished™
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
I've been practicing on how to get the probability distribution/density functions of certain random variables by solving some questions in my book. I cam across this particular problem, and though, It seems easy, the answer does not comply with what I got (or simply I got the wrong answer.)

Urn I and Urn II each has two red chips and two white chips. Two chips are drawn from each urn without replacement. Let X_1 be the number of red chips taken from Urn I, X_2 be the number of red chips taken from Urn II. Find the
p_X_3(k) where X_3 = X_1 + X_2

I got the answer when X_3 = 0 so thought I go with the case where X_3 = 1 and this can happen if either X_1 = 1 and X_2 = 0 or vice versa<br /> <br /> P(X_3 = 1) = \left ( \left (\begin{array}{cc}2 \\ 1 \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{cc}2 \\ 1\end{array} \right) / \left( \begin{array}{cc}4 \\ 2\end{array} \right) \right) \right \cdot \left ( \left (\begin{array}{cc}2 \\ 0 \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{cc}2 \\ 2\end{array} \right) / \left( \begin{array}{cc}4 \\ 2\end{array} \right) \right) \cdot 2

since you can have \left (\begin{array}{cc}2 \\ 1 \end{array} \right) ways of getting 1 red chip and \left (\begin{array}{cc}2 \\ 1 \end{array} \right) ways of getting the white chip out of \left (\begin{array}{cc}4 \\ 2 \end{array} \right) ways of getting 2 chips from a set of 4 chips from Urn I and for Urn II there are 2 choose 0 ways of getting 0 red and 2 choose 2 ways of getting 2 white chips, so you multiply their probabilities, then multiply by two since the cases of Urn I and Urn II can interchange. I got a probability of 2/9, but when I referred to the answer at the appendix of the book the answer should be 2/90. Am I missing something did I misinterpret the question or is my computation wrong?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
There is going to be 6 ways for the first urn and 6 for the second urn, so that gives us 36 choices. Thus probability 2/90 is impossible.

To start from the begining: If we draw a red on the first draw, the chances is 2/4, to draw a red a second time is now 1/3, thus two reds are 1/6. Similarly for two whites from the same urn. This leaves a 2/3 chance that we will draw both a red and a white from the same urn.

To check the work we see that all cases must add to 1.

0 Red = 1/6 from urn one, 1/6 from urn 2 = 1/36
1 red = 2/3 from one, 1/6 from the second or visa versa: 4/18 = 2/9.
2 Red = 2/3 X 2/3 = 4/9.
3 red, same as 1 red = 2/9.
4 red same as 0 red = 1/36.

Thus checking our work we have a total of 1/36 + 2/9 +4/9 + 2/9 + 1/36 = 17/18. WHAT WENT WRONG?

Well, there is another way you can draw two red, that is none from the first urn and two from the second, or visa versa; giving 2/36 to add to the case of 2 reds.
 
Last edited:
I knew it! 2/9 was the correct answer. And those were the same answers I got from solving that problem. But for some odd reason, the appendix of the book gave these answers:

Red = 1/6 from urn one, 1/6 from urn 2 = 1/36
1 red = 2/3 from one, 1/6 from the second or visa versa: 4/18 = 2/90.
2 Red = 2/3 X 2/3 = 1/20.
3 red, same as 1 red = 2/90.
4 red same as 0 red = 1/36.

As you can see, the book added an extra zero to those probabilities that from 1 red to 3 red. I can't believe it. The book made a typo error ^_^;;

thanx for the clarification on the cases btw ^_^
 
Last edited:
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...

Similar threads

Back
Top