# The Grey Labyrinth is a collection of puzzles, riddles, mind games, paradoxes and other intellectually challenging diversions. Related topics: puzzle games, logic puzzles, lateral thinking puzzles, philosophy, mind benders, brain teasers, word problems, conundrums, 3d puzzles, spatial reasoning, intelligence tests, mathematical diversions, paradoxes, physics problems, reasoning, math, science.

Author Message
+1

 Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:30 am    Post subject: 1 I know the formulas for permutations and combinations. But suppose you have a bag filled with 4 black marbles and 4 white marbles. What is the formula to figure out the different sequences for drawing them out? Total brain fart and I can't find it in the lame book.
Bicho the Inhaler
Daedalian Member

 Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:18 am    Post subject: 2 Do you want the number of distinct sequences? That's the "combinations" formula, i.e., the binomial coefficient (4+4)!/(4!4!) If you had more than 2 colors (say, n), then you would use the multinomial coefficient (a 1 + ... + a n )!/(a 1 !...a n !).
+1

 Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:45 am    Post subject: 3 Distinct sequences is permutations. Where the order doesn't matter it's combinations. The binomial coeficient you stated seems to be correct. I don't seem to be able to find it in the book. I'll look it up (internet) to see why this is the right formula. Thanks
Bicho the Inhaler
Daedalian Member

 Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 1:01 pm    Post subject: 4 You've probably discovered why it works, but here's an explanation: The number of distinct sequences, assuming all the items are distinguishable themselves, is, as you say, the number of permutations (N! for N items). However, if M of the items are identical, then for any given permutation of the N items, permuting those M will not change the sequence. There are always M! ways to permute the M items amongst themselves, i.e., M! ways to permute a given sequence without changing how it looks, so if K is the number of distinct sequences, then K*M! = N!, or K = N!/M!. If there are another P that are identical, then you apply the logic again and divide by P!, and so on.
Mr Stoofer
Daedalian Member

 Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 6:35 pm    Post subject: 5 This is a follow-on question from a non-mathematician to all you mathematical wizards. I have X balls, each of which is unique and distinguishable. I can pick any number of balls from 1 ball to all X balls (but not zero balls). The order is irrelevant. How many different possible choices do I have? This is actually a real problem I have at work (although the X items are not balls, I just used balls for simplicity).
+1

 Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 6:44 pm    Post subject: 6 That's combinations you want. X!/(X-n)!n! Where n is the number of balls you choose. ! means factorial. A factorial is n! = n(n-1).....2*1 except for 0! which is 1. So, for example, 4! would be 4*3*2*1 or 24.
Quailman
His Postmajesty

 Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 7:36 pm    Post subject: 7 So he'd have to evaluate that for each n from 1 through 4, right? X=4, n=1 --> 4 X=4, n=2 --> 6 X=4, n=3 --> 4 X=4, n=4 --> 1 Total = 15
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 7:46 pm    Post subject: 8

 Mr Stoofer wrote: I have X balls, each of which is unique and distinguishable. I can pick any number of balls from 1 ball to all X balls (but not zero balls). The order is irrelevant. How many different possible choices do I have?

If I'm reading this right, this is the size of the power set, minus one (you're excluding the empty set).

The answer is 2 X -1

Why? For each of the X balls, there are two possibilities - you choose it, or you don't. The total number of combined possibilities is 2 X , but that includes one combination of choices where the choice was "you don't choose it" for every ball.

Same as: How many ways to set X light switches, excluding the one way where they are all off?
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

 Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 7:49 pm    Post subject: 9 Exercise: Prove: SUM for n=0 to X of X!/(X-n)!n! equals 2 X .
Antrax
ESL Student

 Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 7:56 pm    Post subject: 10 Can we use a combinatorical proof? If so: Both sides of the equations are solutions to the question "in how many ways can you divide X elements into two sets?" On the right, every element can be either in group A or group B, so you have two options, X times - 2^x. On the left, choose i elements without repetitions and without ordering, and the rest go to the other group, and sum on all Is._________________After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!
Bicho the Inhaler
Daedalian Member

 Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 8:15 pm    Post subject: 11 That proof is fine. Here's another: We know that (a + b)^n = {sum from k = 0 to n of}(n!/(k!(n-k)!)a^k b^(n-k); that's why they're called "binomial coefficients." Take a = b = 1 in the above formula.
+1

 Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 8:42 pm    Post subject: 12 I thought he was asking the formula for discrete X and n, not the combined set.
Bicho the Inhaler
Daedalian Member

 Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:12 pm    Post subject: 13 I remembered generalizing that exercise a little while ago, but I couldn't remember what the general formula was. I did manage to reconstruct it, though: Exercise 2. extro's formula is actually a special case of the more general identity: {sum over all integral a 1 ,...,a n-1 satisfying a 0 <= a 1 <= ... <= a n-1 <= a n of}{product from k = 1 to n of}(C(a k , a k-1 )) = ? (you fill in the blank) Notes: - C(m, n) is the combinations function m!/(n!(m-n)!). - the variables a 0 and a n appear free in the above identity; the right hand side can depend on them. (Assume 0 <= a 0 <= a n .) This is an example of a post that would be a lot more readable with a LaTeX mod.
Antrax
ESL Student

Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:07 pm    Post subject: 14

 Quote: This is an example of a post that would be a lot more readable with a LaTeX mod.
My thoughts exactly
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!
Bicho the Inhaler
Daedalian Member

 Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 6:40 am    Post subject: 15 Here's what I was trying to say:
Mr Stoofer
Daedalian Member

 Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:07 pm    Post subject: 16 Thanks to all for you guys for yuor help on my problem. If you actually are interested in the RL problem I have, it is this: I am a lawyer, and my opponent has set out a list of X different things which he says my client has done. One of the possible responses is: "well, none of those things are on their own unlawful". So he says, "yes but you have done all X." But he might not prove that I have done every single one of X. So he accuses my client of (a) every individual act; (b) every combination of 2 or more from the list; (c) all X acts. My problem was, how many accusations is that in total? And I understand the answer to be 2 x -1.
Antrax
ESL Student

 Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:41 pm    Post subject: 17 Yep. Think of it this way - he divides the accusations into two groups: the ones he's going to make and the ones he's not. So that's 2^x. Minus one, because he's not going to accuse your client of nothing._________________After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:36 pm    Post subject: 18

 Mr Stoofer wrote: I am a lawyer, and my opponent has set out a list of X different things which he says my client has done. One of the possible responses is: "well, none of those things are on their own unlawful". So he says, "yes but you have done all X." But he might not prove that I have done every single one of X. So he accuses my client of (a) every individual act; (b) every combination of 2 or more from the list; (c) all X acts.

I don't understand. First, if in fact "none of those things are on their own unlawful", then nobody should be on trial for doing any one of them on their own. So you should subtract, at least, X from the answer:

2 X - X - 1

But that still leaves the question: Is it reasonable to assume that any combination of 2 or more of those acts are unlawful? If not - if there is at least a single combination of two of the acts which is not unlawful - then I think my response (pretending I have a clue about lawyerdom here) would be something like: "Your honor, none of the individual things my client has been accused of doing are, on their own, actually unlawful. Therefore the prosecution must prove he committed some unlawful combination of these acts. So, they have accused him of every combination of one or more of these acts. Now, combinations consisting of a single act are not unlawful, and some combinations of more than a single act are not unlawful. The prosecution is accusing my client of a series of combinations of acts, some of which of are not even unlawfull, as if they haven't the time to determine which are lawful and which are not. And furthermore, the prosecution is accussing my client of this entire series of combinations of acts regardless of which of those combinations they believe they can prove my client committed. Which unlawful combination of acts do they believe they can prove he committed? They don't know. They are grasping at straws here, and wasting the court's time in the process. Unless they are willing to pick what they believe is some unlawful combination of acts that they can prove my client committed, then they are grasping at straws here, and this case should be dismissed."
+1

 Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:12 am    Post subject: 19 I just got my midterm back. There were two extra credit quesions and I was the only one who answered both correctly. Here are the questions: E1: An honest man rolls two dice that cannot be seen by his audience. Someone asks if one of the dice came up 3. Given that the man answers "yes," find the probability that both dice came up 3. Express as a fraction.] (this is elementary for any GLer) E2: If an apple a perfect sphere * is hanging from a string and three flies land on it, find the probability that all three are on points that are within the same hemisphere. My extra credit for you: My teacher claims there are two ways to solve E2, both giving the same answer. I disagree with one of the methods. What are the two methods and why would I claim one of them is incorrect? * substituted to reduce the question
Antrax
ESL Student

 Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:48 am    Post subject: 20 E1: There are a total of 12 die-rolling outcomes for which we'll hear a "yes". Out of those, one is "3, 3". So, 1/12. E2: 1/2 (let the first two flies define the hemisphere - then the third can land either on it or outside it, and the area is the same)._________________After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!
+1

 Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 11:20 am    Post subject: 21 E1: NO. E2: NO. *slowly backs away from every poker thought antrax has ever expressed*

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:21 pm    Post subject: 22

 Antrax wrote: E1: There are a total of 12 die-rolling outcomes for which we'll hear a "yes". Out of those, one is "3, 3". So, 1/12.

E1. If there's 12, would you mind writing them down for me? I only get 11.

E2. Is it possible for 3 point to not be in the same hemisphere? I am not picturing this well.
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

 Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:09 pm    Post subject: 23 #2 - 3 points define a plane that slices the sphere. Assume the does not slice through the center of the sphere. Now slice the sphere through the center with another plane that is parallel to the first plane (defined by the three flies). This divides the sphere into two hemispheres, with all three flies on one of them. Probability 1. If the first assumption is false, then the three flies are on the boundary between two hemispheres - if they are mathematical points on a sphere, probability zero (of the assumption being false - so answer is probability=1).
Antrax
ESL Student

 Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 3:47 pm    Post subject: 24 ~shrugs~ re: E1, it was 8 am my time. re: E2, I still have no clue what you're on about, but I'm exceedingly weak at anything involving 3d shapes. Also why I barely passed advanced calc. 2 And I still make more than you playing poker _________________After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!
Antrax
ESL Student

 Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 3:52 pm    Post subject: 25 After reading extro's post thoroughly, I'm convinced his answer is correct, but I still can't get myself to visualise it. I have this mental picture of two flies huddling close together on one side, and the other standing on the other side _________________After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!
+1

 Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 4:30 pm    Post subject: 26 nah, it doesn't matter where they are. That's a bit more ingenious than I was looking for though.
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

 Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:53 pm    Post subject: 27 How about 4 flies? Naive reasoning for 50% would be that the fourth fly has a 50% chance of being on the hemisphere that the first 3 are on. But there are more than hemispheres that the first three are on. If the first three are very close together, for instance, then there is a very high probability that the fourth will be on some same hemisphere as them. Only when the first three are on a plane that nearly intersects the center of the sphere does the probability of the fourth being on the same or a different hemisphere approach 50%.
+1

 Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:31 am    Post subject: 28 The two methods she had gave the answer of 1/4
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

 Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:16 am    Post subject: 29 I think it's a matter of how the question is interpreted. If you first divide the sphere into two hemispheres (there are an infinite number of ways to do this), then if three flies land, there is a 1/4 chance that all are on the same hemisphere (1/2 chance the second fly is on the same hemisphere as the first fly, and independently 1/2 chance the third fly is). But if three flies land, they will always be together on some hemisphere (not so for 4 flies).
Mr Stoofer
Daedalian Member

Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:07 am    Post subject: 30

extropalopakettle wrote:
 Mr Stoofer wrote: I am a lawyer, and my opponent has set out a list of X different things which he says my client has done. One of the possible responses is: "well, none of those things are on their own unlawful". So he says, "yes but you have done all X." But he might not prove that I have done every single one of X. So he accuses my client of (a) every individual act; (b) every combination of 2 or more from the list; (c) all X acts.

I don't understand. First, if in fact "none of those things are on their own unlawful", then nobody should be on trial for doing any one of them on their own. So you should subtract, at least, X from the answer:

2 X - X - 1

But that still leaves the question: Is it reasonable to assume that any combination of 2 or more of those acts are unlawful? If not - if there is at least a single combination of two of the acts which is not unlawful - then I think my response (pretending I have a clue about lawyerdom here) would be something like: "Your honor, none of the individual things my client has been accused of doing are, on their own, actually unlawful. Therefore the prosecution must prove he committed some unlawful combination of these acts. So, they have accused him of every combination of one or more of these acts. Now, combinations consisting of a single act are not unlawful, and some combinations of more than a single act are not unlawful. The prosecution is accusing my client of a series of combinations of acts, some of which of are not even unlawfull, as if they haven't the time to determine which are lawful and which are not. And furthermore, the prosecution is accussing my client of this entire series of combinations of acts regardless of which of those combinations they believe they can prove my client committed. Which unlawful combination of acts do they believe they can prove he committed? They don't know. They are grasping at straws here, and wasting the court's time in the process. Unless they are willing to pick what they believe is some unlawful combination of acts that they can prove my client committed, then they are grasping at straws here, and this case should be dismissed."

I couldn't agree more. In fact, it may be that some of the individual things is unlawful. But the way the other side put the case, there are a HUGE number of accusations against my client (ie 2 x -1). I am going to court to ask the judge to order that they pick their best case because it is unfair to face such a huge number of accusations. For that purpose, I wanted to be able to calculate the total number of accusations.
+1

Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:32 am    Post subject: 31

Ok, this is annoying.

 Question wrote: Based on a random sample of n = 400 voters, the NBC news division predicts that the Democratic candidate for the presidency will get 49% of the vote, but she actually gets 51%. Should we conclude that the survey was done incorrectly? Why or why not?

 Answer wrote: No, because of samling variability, sample proportions will naturally vary from the true population proportion, even if the sampling is done with a perfectly valid procedure.

Umm....ok. What if she gets 60%? 70%? I can only assume that there is a threshhold for validity. So I asked my teacher how you determine the answer. She said, "Well the difference is only 2% which isn't very much." I pushed for clarification and her answer was "Statistics can be annoying that way, it's not always exact."

Grrrr. There's a difference between not exact and NOTHING! Anyone care to field this?
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.
The Ragin' South Asian

 Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:05 am    Post subject: 32 isn't there something with z scores or something where you figure out the probability of getting that result with a random sample if the real figure is whatever the final outcome is. and you just choose beforehand what your threshold would be, like if there's less than a 10% chance or whatever you'll conclude it's invalid
Lucky Wizard
Daedalian Member

 Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:32 am    Post subject: 33 What RSA said. Furthermore, if you omit from RSA's statement a couple of bits specific to your question, the resulting statement becomes a statement of how any "Is this due to sampling variability or not?" question is answered. (By the way, the usual threshold is 5%, though 10% and 1% are sometimes used.)
+1

 Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:56 am    Post subject: 34 You need the standard deviation for a z score. No sd was given._________________And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.
+1

 Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 6:07 am    Post subject: 35 Basically you've conflated some things there. A z score is determined by (value - mean)/(standard deviation) Something is considered usual if it is within 2 standard deviations (or -2 <= z <= +2) The empirical rule when dealing with bell-shaped distributions states that about 95% of all values fall withing 2 standard deviations._________________And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.
Lucky Wizard
Daedalian Member

 Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 6:29 am    Post subject: 36 Since each trial (person in this instance) can have two outcomes, this is a binomial distribution. The standard deviation for a binomial distribution is sqrt(n*p*q) where p and q are the probabilities of each outcome, and n is the number of people polled. The normal distribution works well as an approximation for the binomial distribution, and this approximation is often used when n is large enough to make actually calculating the binomial distribution impractical.
+1

Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:32 am    Post subject: 37

 Quote: Since each trial (person in this instance) can have two outcomes, this is a binomial distribution.
That really doesn't sound right. The standard deviation of a sample is the standard deviation of the population divided by the squareroot of the sample size. How do you reconsile that?
 Quote: The normal distribution works well as an approximation for the binomial distribution, and this approximation is often used when n is large enough to make actually calculating the binomial distribution impractical.
That pretty much covers any distribution (unless it's not normal, naturally)
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.
kevinatilusa
Daedalian Member

 Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 8:11 am    Post subject: 38 I think the only thing you're disagreeing on is the statistic to be measured. If we were to ask one person before the election whether they intended to vote Democrat or not, they would say yes with 51% probability. If we treat "yes" as a 1 and no as a "0", this is a random variable with mean 0.51 and standard deviation sqrt(0.51*0.49) If we were to ask 400 people their intentions, the mean and standard deviation depend on what your sample statistic is. If it is the number of people who answered Democrat (as in Lucky Wizard's post), the mean would be 0.51*400=204 and the SD would be sqrt(400*0.51*0.49). If it is the proportion of people who answered correctly (as you seem to be assuming), the mean would be 0.51 and the SD would be sqrt(0.51*0.49)/sqrt(400). And not quite every distribution can be approximated by a normal distribution. If your variables are coming from a Cauchy distribution (The ratio of two independent normally distributed variables), all of your sample means will also come from a Cauchy distribution, so you can't approximate them by a normal distribution.
+1

Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:12 pm    Post subject: 39

 Quote: And not quite every distribution can be approximated by a normal distribution.
I know, I said that.

Back to the question at hand though: I'll say it another way. Assume the reject rate of light bulbs is 3%. Out of a really large number of lightbulbs (millions and millions) you randomly sample 100 (with replacement) and find 7 bad bulbs. Assume normal distribution across the population. Is the error rate for the sample considered odd? Why or why not? Show your work.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.
 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year by All usersAntraxBicho the InhalerextropalopakettlejadesmarkevinatilusaLucky WizardMr StooferQuailmanSamadhiThe Ragin' South Asian Oldest FirstNewest First
 All times are GMT Page 1 of 1

 Jump to: Select a forum Puzzles and Games----------------Grey Labyrinth PuzzlesVisitor Submitted PuzzlesVisitor GamesMafia Games Miscellaneous----------------Off-TopicVisitor Submitted NewsScience, Art, and CulturePoll Tournaments Administration----------------Grey Labyrinth NewsFeature Requests / Site Problems
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum