What Is the Probability of Seeing a Point on an Infinite Grid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter h6ss
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Grid Points
Click For Summary
The probability of seeing a point on an infinite grid from the origin (0,0) hinges on whether the line connecting the origin to the point (x,y) intersects any other grid points. The discussion highlights that the concept of a "random integer" lacks a uniform distribution, which influences the probability outcome. The problem's complexity is debated, with some suggesting the initial solution steps are straightforward and the product values are well-known. Ultimately, the core question revolves around the likelihood that the line to a randomly chosen point does not cross any grid points. Understanding these nuances is crucial for accurately determining the probability in this scenario.
h6ss
Messages
77
Reaction score
9
Here is a difficult probability question I found interesting and thought I'd share:

Suppose you are standing on an infinitely large square grid at the point (0,0), and suppose that you can see infinitely far but cannot see through grid points. Given a random grid point z = (x, y), where x and y are integers, what is the chance you can see z?

The rather elegant answer is:
Prob = \frac{6}{\pi^2}

More information:
 

Attachments

Last edited:
  • Like
Likes FactChecker
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no uniform distribution over all integers. What does "random integer" mean?
The answer does not depend much on it, but there are choices that do give a different answer.

I think the problem is not as hard as the pdf describes it, as the steps taken in the first solution are not hard to find and the value of the product is well-known.
 
What is the question actually asking? "What is the probability that the line connecting a randomly assigned point z (x,y) with the origin does not intersect any grid points"?
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K