Subject:
|
Re: math question (or pattern... whatever...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:16:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
281 times
|
| |
|
|
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 11:37:58PM +0000, David Eaton wrote:
> I don't quite get why this works-- if you're doing rand($#bag), won't that
> always pick r, r, or w for the 1st value? Hence, theoretically, you could
> pick "wb", which isn't in your sample set... on the other hand, you're
> increasing the chance that you'll pick "rr" since you can't pick b first,
> and are more likely to pick r. I'm amazed either that this works out by luck
> to 33%, or that there's some underhanded secret-math-logic as to why this is
> an equivalent situation.
doh, you're right :) Also, I was calculating the chance of getting 2
red marbles, in general, not checking the chance given the first one was
red... :)
That's what you get when you do an experiment, and have an expected
solution in your mind... you get a bug, but it tells you what you
wanted to know, so you accept it.
For the curious, my original program, after fixed by Dave, returns 16%.
:)
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: math question (or pattern... whatever...)
|
| (...) I don't quite get why this works-- if you're doing rand($#bag), won't that always pick r, r, or w for the 1st value? Hence, theoretically, you could pick "wb", which isn't in your sample set... on the other hand, you're increasing the chance (...) (22 years ago, 3-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
61 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
