MHB Wackerly/Mendenhall/Schaeffer Problem 2.14: Perspective's Role in Probability

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ackbach
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Probability
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a probability problem involving a divining rod expert tasked with identifying two water-filled cans among four. The sample space consists of various outcomes based on the expert's guesses about the cans. If the divining rod is ineffective, the probability of correctly identifying both water cans by chance is calculated as 1/4. Perspectives on the problem differ, with some focusing on the diviner's knowledge of the number of water cans and others on the test designer's insights. Ultimately, the conversation emphasizes the impact of perspective on the sample space and probability calculations.
Ackbach
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,148
Reaction score
93
Problem 2.14. According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, a dividing rod is "a forked rod believed to indicate [divine] the presence of water or minerals by dipping downward when held over a vein." To test the claims of a divining rod expert, skeptics bury four cans in the ground, two empty and two filled with water. The expert is led to each of the four cans and told that two contain water. He uses the divining rod to test each of the four cans and decide which two contain water.

  • List the sample space for this experiment.
  • If the divining rod is completely useless for locating water, what is the probability that the expert will correctly identify (by guessing) both of the cans containing water?

Answer.

  • For each can, there are four possibilities:
    1. $E_1$: the can has water and the expert says it has water (WW),
    2. $E_2$: the can has water and the expert says it does not have water (WN),
    3. $E_3$: the can does not have water and the expert says it has water (NW),
    4. $E_4$: the can does not have water and the expert says it does not have water (NN).
    Theoretically, there are $4^{4}$ possible outcomes, since there are four possibilities for each can and there are four cans. However, there are many possibilities we can rule out, since many of them would have three cans with water, e.g. So, we could have:
    \begin{align*}
    &WW, WW, NW, NW \\
    &WW, WW, NW, NN \\
    &WW, WW, NN, NW \\
    &WW, WW, NN, NN \\

    &WW, WN, NW, NW \\
    &WW, WN, NW, NN \\
    &WW, WN, NN, NW \\
    &WW, WN, NN, NN \\

    &WN, WW, NW, NW \\
    &WN, WW, NW, NN \\
    &WN, WW, NN, NW \\
    &WN, WW, NN, NN \\

    &WN, WN, NW, NW \\
    &WN, WN, NW, NN \\
    &WN, WN, NN, NW \\
    &WN, WN, NN, NN.
    \end{align*}

    Re-arranging the actual cans would not change the structure of the probabilities, so we can assume, WLOG, that this is the sample space.
  • For the first water can, there are two possibilities: $E_{1}$ and $E_{2}$. So the probability is $1/2$ that the diviner will correctly identify it. The same goes for the other can: a $1/2$ chance. Hence, the probability that the diviner will correctly identify both water cans as containing water is $(1/2)(1/2)=1/4$. This we can verify by looking at the table: there are four rows in which the diviner correctly identifies the two water cans, out of sixteen rows total. Hence, the probability is $1/4$.

My question is this: does the perspective matter? That is, you could look at this problem from the point of view of the diviner (Does he know how many cans have water and how many don't? Presumably not, if it's a good test.) Or you could view it from the perspective of the test designer, who knows there are two water cans and two cans without water. Does it make a difference in the probability? Or even in the sample space? Surely it makes a difference in the sample space: the test designer can reduce what he looks at, because of the reasoning I put forth before. But the diviner has to consider quite a few more possibilities: if the cans are "indistinguishable", then there could be anywhere from zero to 4 water cans. For each of those five possibilities, the diviner could be guessing water or no water.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hi Ackbach,

I think you're making this too hard.
For (a), the sample space is simply all the subsets of size two taken from the collection of four buckets. We assume these are all equally likely if the divining rod is useless.
For (b), how many of these subsets contain the two buckets with water?
 
awkward said:
Hi Ackbach,

I think you're making this too hard.
For (a), the sample space is simply all the subsets of size two taken from the collection of four buckets. We assume these are all equally likely if the divining rod is useless.
For (b), how many of these subsets contain the two buckets with water?

Ah, it would also help if I read the problem correctly. The diviner is told that there are two cans with water (and presumably that there are two without).

Thanks much!
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top