Interpreting the word “randomly”An occupancy problemProbability of $n$ balls in $n$ cellsChoosing Balls RandomlyThe probability that exactly $k$ balls are in the first urn.Find the probability that exactly two cells remain empty, one is occupied by three balls and the rest contain each one ball.k balls in N cells, one ball per cell. Then repeat the process n times.Seven balls are to be distributed randomly into seven cells. Let X4= # of cells containing exactly 4 balls.Dividing balls into cells probability questionLimit probability for a ball in box problemWhat is the probability that exactly one box remains empty

How does one stock fund's charge of 1% more in operating expenses than another fund lower expected returns by 10%?

Is killing off one of my queer characters homophobic?

wavelength of seismic wave with a gaussian source

TikZ Can I draw an arrow by specifying the initial point, direction, and length?

Why does Hellboy file down his horns?

A "Simple" Task

Interpreting the word "randomly"

Why would guns not work in the dungeon?

Won 50K! Now what should I do with it

Robbers: The Hidden OEIS Substring

P-MOSFET failing

Cubic programming and beyond?

Are there any double stars that I can actually see orbit each other?

nmcheck.gnome.org facilitating ads?

What is a printer console?

latinate or other words of foreign origin as opposed to Germanic words

When is pointing out a person's hypocrisy not considered to be a logical fallacy?

What would be the ideal melee weapon made of "Phase Metal"?

A DVR algebra with weird automorphisms

Was the Ford Model T black because of the speed black paint dries?

Why does the trade federation become so alarmed upon learning the ambassadors are Jedi Knights?

Is this floating-point optimization allowed?

Is `curl something | sudo bash -` a reasonably safe installation method?

How is the idea of "X comes a distant third" commonly expressed in Russian?



Interpreting the word “randomly”


An occupancy problemProbability of $n$ balls in $n$ cellsChoosing Balls RandomlyThe probability that exactly $k$ balls are in the first urn.Find the probability that exactly two cells remain empty, one is occupied by three balls and the rest contain each one ball.k balls in N cells, one ball per cell. Then repeat the process n times.Seven balls are to be distributed randomly into seven cells. Let X4= # of cells containing exactly 4 balls.Dividing balls into cells probability questionLimit probability for a ball in box problemWhat is the probability that exactly one box remains empty






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








4












$begingroup$


Suppose that 3 indistinguishable balls are placed at random into 3 distinguishable
cells. What is the probability that exactly one cell remains empty?



The book's answer is $$frac3(3-1)3+3-1choose3=frac35$$.



In words, the number of ways of distributing the 3 balls so that there is exactly one cell that is empty divided by the number of ways to distributing the 3 balls.



My question is, that if I interpret "randomly" to mean the probability that any ball falls into a cell is $ frac13 $. I think the answer comes out different. The probability that the first cell is empty is $frac627$. So the probability that one of them is empty is



$$3 *frac627=frac23$$.



Therefore is it right to say that there are two interpretations to this question and based on the wording we should infer the first interpretation?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Yes. The problem does not adequately specify the probability space. I think your interpretation is more natural, but others may disagree.
    $endgroup$
    – saulspatz
    8 hours ago

















4












$begingroup$


Suppose that 3 indistinguishable balls are placed at random into 3 distinguishable
cells. What is the probability that exactly one cell remains empty?



The book's answer is $$frac3(3-1)3+3-1choose3=frac35$$.



In words, the number of ways of distributing the 3 balls so that there is exactly one cell that is empty divided by the number of ways to distributing the 3 balls.



My question is, that if I interpret "randomly" to mean the probability that any ball falls into a cell is $ frac13 $. I think the answer comes out different. The probability that the first cell is empty is $frac627$. So the probability that one of them is empty is



$$3 *frac627=frac23$$.



Therefore is it right to say that there are two interpretations to this question and based on the wording we should infer the first interpretation?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Yes. The problem does not adequately specify the probability space. I think your interpretation is more natural, but others may disagree.
    $endgroup$
    – saulspatz
    8 hours ago













4












4








4





$begingroup$


Suppose that 3 indistinguishable balls are placed at random into 3 distinguishable
cells. What is the probability that exactly one cell remains empty?



The book's answer is $$frac3(3-1)3+3-1choose3=frac35$$.



In words, the number of ways of distributing the 3 balls so that there is exactly one cell that is empty divided by the number of ways to distributing the 3 balls.



My question is, that if I interpret "randomly" to mean the probability that any ball falls into a cell is $ frac13 $. I think the answer comes out different. The probability that the first cell is empty is $frac627$. So the probability that one of them is empty is



$$3 *frac627=frac23$$.



Therefore is it right to say that there are two interpretations to this question and based on the wording we should infer the first interpretation?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Suppose that 3 indistinguishable balls are placed at random into 3 distinguishable
cells. What is the probability that exactly one cell remains empty?



The book's answer is $$frac3(3-1)3+3-1choose3=frac35$$.



In words, the number of ways of distributing the 3 balls so that there is exactly one cell that is empty divided by the number of ways to distributing the 3 balls.



My question is, that if I interpret "randomly" to mean the probability that any ball falls into a cell is $ frac13 $. I think the answer comes out different. The probability that the first cell is empty is $frac627$. So the probability that one of them is empty is



$$3 *frac627=frac23$$.



Therefore is it right to say that there are two interpretations to this question and based on the wording we should infer the first interpretation?







probability






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago







johnson

















asked 8 hours ago









johnsonjohnson

545 bronze badges




545 bronze badges







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Yes. The problem does not adequately specify the probability space. I think your interpretation is more natural, but others may disagree.
    $endgroup$
    – saulspatz
    8 hours ago












  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Yes. The problem does not adequately specify the probability space. I think your interpretation is more natural, but others may disagree.
    $endgroup$
    – saulspatz
    8 hours ago







2




2




$begingroup$
Yes. The problem does not adequately specify the probability space. I think your interpretation is more natural, but others may disagree.
$endgroup$
– saulspatz
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
Yes. The problem does not adequately specify the probability space. I think your interpretation is more natural, but others may disagree.
$endgroup$
– saulspatz
8 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

EDITED



It is not only a question of interpretation.



Your first answer is based on the interpretation that all the distinguishable arrangement of the three undistiguishable balls in the three distinguishable boxes are equally likely.



Below there are two arrangements of distinguishable balls which look different:



$$boxed 1 boxed 2 boxed 3$$
$$boxed 2 boxed 1 boxed 3$$



These arrangements fuse if you cannot distinguish the balls:



$$boxed * boxed * boxed *.$$



Your first answer is correct if the interpretation is acceptable.



With real physical marbles (you can touch them) it is hard to imagine that this interpretation is correct. How would you put the in concreto distinguishable balls into the boxes so that the interpretation works? So this interpretation is not really acceptable in the case of distinguishable marbles whose "marks" get deleted. Since they are touchable, fingerprints remain.



Regarding the second, more acceptable interpretation the distinguishable arrangements of distinguishable matbles get equally likely and the probability we seek is indeed:



$$frac23.$$



Then, however you don't get the same probability for the arrangements that remain distinguishable after removing the fingerprints.



Now, the moral of the example is that the interpretation is a tough thing. Most importantly the first interpretation cannot be realized by throwing balls into the boxes.



(Don't get mislead by the Bose-Einstein distribution in the case of which the number of arrangements of the indistinguishable balls is given as a definition and not as a result of a calculation.)






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Is my second answer wrong then?
    $endgroup$
    – johnson
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I hit the submit button accidentally. I am not done yet.
    $endgroup$
    – zoli
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I am done now , finally .
    $endgroup$
    – zoli
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I need to know why my calculation is wrong. Let's calculate the probability the first cell is the only one empty. In each subset, let the first set represent the balls in the second cell and the second set the balls in the third cell. The outcomes are 1,2,3 2,1,3 3,1,2 1,2,3 1,3,2, 2,3,1 each of these happens with probability 1/27
    $endgroup$
    – johnson
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I am terribly sorry. You are right regarding the second interpretation.
    $endgroup$
    – zoli
    6 hours ago


















1












$begingroup$

From the solution given and from the fact that the balls are indistinguishable, the question seems to be suggesting that you are to consider each configuration of balls in cells as equally likely, rather than your interpretation to consider each placement of an individual ball as equally likely. This changes the relative probabilities of the final configurations. I'll illustrate.



With indistinguishable balls there are $binom52=10$ configurations, each equally likely. So $[3,0,0]$ is as likely as $[2,1,0]$ is as likely as $[1,1,1]$, $frac110$ chance for any of these.



With each ball having a $frac13$ chance of being in a given cell, there is now a $(frac13)^3=frac127$ chance of $[3,0,0]$, but a $3cdotfrac127=frac19$ chance of $[2,1,0]$, as well as a $frac19$ chance of $[1,1,1]$. This is because you have to account for the different ways these last two configurations can occur (i.e. with $[2,1,0]$ you can have the first and second ball in cell 1, first and third, or second and third), whereas there's only one way for $[3,0,0]$ to occur.



Describing the process as "random" is never enough to determine the probability space of a problem like this. Your interpretation isn't wrong per se, but with them mentioning the balls are indistinguishable, in probability courses the expected calculation given that language is to assume that the final configurations have uniform probability of occurring. They definitely could have made that clearer in the question.






share|cite|improve this answer








New contributor



Solipsist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





$endgroup$




















    1












    $begingroup$

    $frac13$ is the probability that any one of the three balls falls into a cell. But in the second interpretation, since you've eliminated one cell, one would think that the probability space becomes different. Now you're distributing three balls into two cells. If you were to imagine a sample space for the the second interpretation , then you could create three disjoint spaces within the universal sample space: $A_1$, $A_2$, and $A_3$. For example, $A_1$ would be the sample space with the first cell not filled, $A_2$ the sample space with the second cell not filled, and $A_3$ would be the sample space with the third cell not filled. Let's consider the elements that make up $A_1$ for the moment. How were the elements in $A_1$ generated? We know that the balls are dropped randomly, but now we've said that the first cell cannot be filled. So even if we're performing a real-world experiment, there is a physical cell that is to remain empty. To make things more concrete we can just throw away the first cell. Thus interpreting this physical experiment mathematically means that we're essentially considering only cells $2$ and $3$ in $A_1$. We now see that the elements in $A_1 cup A_2 cup A_3$ are the elements in which two cells are filled by three balls randomly.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$















      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3291985%2finterpreting-the-word-randomly%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      5












      $begingroup$

      EDITED



      It is not only a question of interpretation.



      Your first answer is based on the interpretation that all the distinguishable arrangement of the three undistiguishable balls in the three distinguishable boxes are equally likely.



      Below there are two arrangements of distinguishable balls which look different:



      $$boxed 1 boxed 2 boxed 3$$
      $$boxed 2 boxed 1 boxed 3$$



      These arrangements fuse if you cannot distinguish the balls:



      $$boxed * boxed * boxed *.$$



      Your first answer is correct if the interpretation is acceptable.



      With real physical marbles (you can touch them) it is hard to imagine that this interpretation is correct. How would you put the in concreto distinguishable balls into the boxes so that the interpretation works? So this interpretation is not really acceptable in the case of distinguishable marbles whose "marks" get deleted. Since they are touchable, fingerprints remain.



      Regarding the second, more acceptable interpretation the distinguishable arrangements of distinguishable matbles get equally likely and the probability we seek is indeed:



      $$frac23.$$



      Then, however you don't get the same probability for the arrangements that remain distinguishable after removing the fingerprints.



      Now, the moral of the example is that the interpretation is a tough thing. Most importantly the first interpretation cannot be realized by throwing balls into the boxes.



      (Don't get mislead by the Bose-Einstein distribution in the case of which the number of arrangements of the indistinguishable balls is given as a definition and not as a result of a calculation.)






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        Is my second answer wrong then?
        $endgroup$
        – johnson
        7 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        I hit the submit button accidentally. I am not done yet.
        $endgroup$
        – zoli
        7 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        I am done now , finally .
        $endgroup$
        – zoli
        7 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        I need to know why my calculation is wrong. Let's calculate the probability the first cell is the only one empty. In each subset, let the first set represent the balls in the second cell and the second set the balls in the third cell. The outcomes are 1,2,3 2,1,3 3,1,2 1,2,3 1,3,2, 2,3,1 each of these happens with probability 1/27
        $endgroup$
        – johnson
        6 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        I am terribly sorry. You are right regarding the second interpretation.
        $endgroup$
        – zoli
        6 hours ago















      5












      $begingroup$

      EDITED



      It is not only a question of interpretation.



      Your first answer is based on the interpretation that all the distinguishable arrangement of the three undistiguishable balls in the three distinguishable boxes are equally likely.



      Below there are two arrangements of distinguishable balls which look different:



      $$boxed 1 boxed 2 boxed 3$$
      $$boxed 2 boxed 1 boxed 3$$



      These arrangements fuse if you cannot distinguish the balls:



      $$boxed * boxed * boxed *.$$



      Your first answer is correct if the interpretation is acceptable.



      With real physical marbles (you can touch them) it is hard to imagine that this interpretation is correct. How would you put the in concreto distinguishable balls into the boxes so that the interpretation works? So this interpretation is not really acceptable in the case of distinguishable marbles whose "marks" get deleted. Since they are touchable, fingerprints remain.



      Regarding the second, more acceptable interpretation the distinguishable arrangements of distinguishable matbles get equally likely and the probability we seek is indeed:



      $$frac23.$$



      Then, however you don't get the same probability for the arrangements that remain distinguishable after removing the fingerprints.



      Now, the moral of the example is that the interpretation is a tough thing. Most importantly the first interpretation cannot be realized by throwing balls into the boxes.



      (Don't get mislead by the Bose-Einstein distribution in the case of which the number of arrangements of the indistinguishable balls is given as a definition and not as a result of a calculation.)






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        Is my second answer wrong then?
        $endgroup$
        – johnson
        7 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        I hit the submit button accidentally. I am not done yet.
        $endgroup$
        – zoli
        7 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        I am done now , finally .
        $endgroup$
        – zoli
        7 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        I need to know why my calculation is wrong. Let's calculate the probability the first cell is the only one empty. In each subset, let the first set represent the balls in the second cell and the second set the balls in the third cell. The outcomes are 1,2,3 2,1,3 3,1,2 1,2,3 1,3,2, 2,3,1 each of these happens with probability 1/27
        $endgroup$
        – johnson
        6 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        I am terribly sorry. You are right regarding the second interpretation.
        $endgroup$
        – zoli
        6 hours ago













      5












      5








      5





      $begingroup$

      EDITED



      It is not only a question of interpretation.



      Your first answer is based on the interpretation that all the distinguishable arrangement of the three undistiguishable balls in the three distinguishable boxes are equally likely.



      Below there are two arrangements of distinguishable balls which look different:



      $$boxed 1 boxed 2 boxed 3$$
      $$boxed 2 boxed 1 boxed 3$$



      These arrangements fuse if you cannot distinguish the balls:



      $$boxed * boxed * boxed *.$$



      Your first answer is correct if the interpretation is acceptable.



      With real physical marbles (you can touch them) it is hard to imagine that this interpretation is correct. How would you put the in concreto distinguishable balls into the boxes so that the interpretation works? So this interpretation is not really acceptable in the case of distinguishable marbles whose "marks" get deleted. Since they are touchable, fingerprints remain.



      Regarding the second, more acceptable interpretation the distinguishable arrangements of distinguishable matbles get equally likely and the probability we seek is indeed:



      $$frac23.$$



      Then, however you don't get the same probability for the arrangements that remain distinguishable after removing the fingerprints.



      Now, the moral of the example is that the interpretation is a tough thing. Most importantly the first interpretation cannot be realized by throwing balls into the boxes.



      (Don't get mislead by the Bose-Einstein distribution in the case of which the number of arrangements of the indistinguishable balls is given as a definition and not as a result of a calculation.)






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      EDITED



      It is not only a question of interpretation.



      Your first answer is based on the interpretation that all the distinguishable arrangement of the three undistiguishable balls in the three distinguishable boxes are equally likely.



      Below there are two arrangements of distinguishable balls which look different:



      $$boxed 1 boxed 2 boxed 3$$
      $$boxed 2 boxed 1 boxed 3$$



      These arrangements fuse if you cannot distinguish the balls:



      $$boxed * boxed * boxed *.$$



      Your first answer is correct if the interpretation is acceptable.



      With real physical marbles (you can touch them) it is hard to imagine that this interpretation is correct. How would you put the in concreto distinguishable balls into the boxes so that the interpretation works? So this interpretation is not really acceptable in the case of distinguishable marbles whose "marks" get deleted. Since they are touchable, fingerprints remain.



      Regarding the second, more acceptable interpretation the distinguishable arrangements of distinguishable matbles get equally likely and the probability we seek is indeed:



      $$frac23.$$



      Then, however you don't get the same probability for the arrangements that remain distinguishable after removing the fingerprints.



      Now, the moral of the example is that the interpretation is a tough thing. Most importantly the first interpretation cannot be realized by throwing balls into the boxes.



      (Don't get mislead by the Bose-Einstein distribution in the case of which the number of arrangements of the indistinguishable balls is given as a definition and not as a result of a calculation.)







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited 6 hours ago

























      answered 7 hours ago









      zolizoli

      17.7k4 gold badges19 silver badges46 bronze badges




      17.7k4 gold badges19 silver badges46 bronze badges











      • $begingroup$
        Is my second answer wrong then?
        $endgroup$
        – johnson
        7 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        I hit the submit button accidentally. I am not done yet.
        $endgroup$
        – zoli
        7 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        I am done now , finally .
        $endgroup$
        – zoli
        7 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        I need to know why my calculation is wrong. Let's calculate the probability the first cell is the only one empty. In each subset, let the first set represent the balls in the second cell and the second set the balls in the third cell. The outcomes are 1,2,3 2,1,3 3,1,2 1,2,3 1,3,2, 2,3,1 each of these happens with probability 1/27
        $endgroup$
        – johnson
        6 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        I am terribly sorry. You are right regarding the second interpretation.
        $endgroup$
        – zoli
        6 hours ago
















      • $begingroup$
        Is my second answer wrong then?
        $endgroup$
        – johnson
        7 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        I hit the submit button accidentally. I am not done yet.
        $endgroup$
        – zoli
        7 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        I am done now , finally .
        $endgroup$
        – zoli
        7 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        I need to know why my calculation is wrong. Let's calculate the probability the first cell is the only one empty. In each subset, let the first set represent the balls in the second cell and the second set the balls in the third cell. The outcomes are 1,2,3 2,1,3 3,1,2 1,2,3 1,3,2, 2,3,1 each of these happens with probability 1/27
        $endgroup$
        – johnson
        6 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        I am terribly sorry. You are right regarding the second interpretation.
        $endgroup$
        – zoli
        6 hours ago















      $begingroup$
      Is my second answer wrong then?
      $endgroup$
      – johnson
      7 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      Is my second answer wrong then?
      $endgroup$
      – johnson
      7 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      I hit the submit button accidentally. I am not done yet.
      $endgroup$
      – zoli
      7 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      I hit the submit button accidentally. I am not done yet.
      $endgroup$
      – zoli
      7 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      I am done now , finally .
      $endgroup$
      – zoli
      7 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      I am done now , finally .
      $endgroup$
      – zoli
      7 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      I need to know why my calculation is wrong. Let's calculate the probability the first cell is the only one empty. In each subset, let the first set represent the balls in the second cell and the second set the balls in the third cell. The outcomes are 1,2,3 2,1,3 3,1,2 1,2,3 1,3,2, 2,3,1 each of these happens with probability 1/27
      $endgroup$
      – johnson
      6 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      I need to know why my calculation is wrong. Let's calculate the probability the first cell is the only one empty. In each subset, let the first set represent the balls in the second cell and the second set the balls in the third cell. The outcomes are 1,2,3 2,1,3 3,1,2 1,2,3 1,3,2, 2,3,1 each of these happens with probability 1/27
      $endgroup$
      – johnson
      6 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      I am terribly sorry. You are right regarding the second interpretation.
      $endgroup$
      – zoli
      6 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      I am terribly sorry. You are right regarding the second interpretation.
      $endgroup$
      – zoli
      6 hours ago













      1












      $begingroup$

      From the solution given and from the fact that the balls are indistinguishable, the question seems to be suggesting that you are to consider each configuration of balls in cells as equally likely, rather than your interpretation to consider each placement of an individual ball as equally likely. This changes the relative probabilities of the final configurations. I'll illustrate.



      With indistinguishable balls there are $binom52=10$ configurations, each equally likely. So $[3,0,0]$ is as likely as $[2,1,0]$ is as likely as $[1,1,1]$, $frac110$ chance for any of these.



      With each ball having a $frac13$ chance of being in a given cell, there is now a $(frac13)^3=frac127$ chance of $[3,0,0]$, but a $3cdotfrac127=frac19$ chance of $[2,1,0]$, as well as a $frac19$ chance of $[1,1,1]$. This is because you have to account for the different ways these last two configurations can occur (i.e. with $[2,1,0]$ you can have the first and second ball in cell 1, first and third, or second and third), whereas there's only one way for $[3,0,0]$ to occur.



      Describing the process as "random" is never enough to determine the probability space of a problem like this. Your interpretation isn't wrong per se, but with them mentioning the balls are indistinguishable, in probability courses the expected calculation given that language is to assume that the final configurations have uniform probability of occurring. They definitely could have made that clearer in the question.






      share|cite|improve this answer








      New contributor



      Solipsist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      $endgroup$

















        1












        $begingroup$

        From the solution given and from the fact that the balls are indistinguishable, the question seems to be suggesting that you are to consider each configuration of balls in cells as equally likely, rather than your interpretation to consider each placement of an individual ball as equally likely. This changes the relative probabilities of the final configurations. I'll illustrate.



        With indistinguishable balls there are $binom52=10$ configurations, each equally likely. So $[3,0,0]$ is as likely as $[2,1,0]$ is as likely as $[1,1,1]$, $frac110$ chance for any of these.



        With each ball having a $frac13$ chance of being in a given cell, there is now a $(frac13)^3=frac127$ chance of $[3,0,0]$, but a $3cdotfrac127=frac19$ chance of $[2,1,0]$, as well as a $frac19$ chance of $[1,1,1]$. This is because you have to account for the different ways these last two configurations can occur (i.e. with $[2,1,0]$ you can have the first and second ball in cell 1, first and third, or second and third), whereas there's only one way for $[3,0,0]$ to occur.



        Describing the process as "random" is never enough to determine the probability space of a problem like this. Your interpretation isn't wrong per se, but with them mentioning the balls are indistinguishable, in probability courses the expected calculation given that language is to assume that the final configurations have uniform probability of occurring. They definitely could have made that clearer in the question.






        share|cite|improve this answer








        New contributor



        Solipsist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.





        $endgroup$















          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          From the solution given and from the fact that the balls are indistinguishable, the question seems to be suggesting that you are to consider each configuration of balls in cells as equally likely, rather than your interpretation to consider each placement of an individual ball as equally likely. This changes the relative probabilities of the final configurations. I'll illustrate.



          With indistinguishable balls there are $binom52=10$ configurations, each equally likely. So $[3,0,0]$ is as likely as $[2,1,0]$ is as likely as $[1,1,1]$, $frac110$ chance for any of these.



          With each ball having a $frac13$ chance of being in a given cell, there is now a $(frac13)^3=frac127$ chance of $[3,0,0]$, but a $3cdotfrac127=frac19$ chance of $[2,1,0]$, as well as a $frac19$ chance of $[1,1,1]$. This is because you have to account for the different ways these last two configurations can occur (i.e. with $[2,1,0]$ you can have the first and second ball in cell 1, first and third, or second and third), whereas there's only one way for $[3,0,0]$ to occur.



          Describing the process as "random" is never enough to determine the probability space of a problem like this. Your interpretation isn't wrong per se, but with them mentioning the balls are indistinguishable, in probability courses the expected calculation given that language is to assume that the final configurations have uniform probability of occurring. They definitely could have made that clearer in the question.






          share|cite|improve this answer








          New contributor



          Solipsist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





          $endgroup$



          From the solution given and from the fact that the balls are indistinguishable, the question seems to be suggesting that you are to consider each configuration of balls in cells as equally likely, rather than your interpretation to consider each placement of an individual ball as equally likely. This changes the relative probabilities of the final configurations. I'll illustrate.



          With indistinguishable balls there are $binom52=10$ configurations, each equally likely. So $[3,0,0]$ is as likely as $[2,1,0]$ is as likely as $[1,1,1]$, $frac110$ chance for any of these.



          With each ball having a $frac13$ chance of being in a given cell, there is now a $(frac13)^3=frac127$ chance of $[3,0,0]$, but a $3cdotfrac127=frac19$ chance of $[2,1,0]$, as well as a $frac19$ chance of $[1,1,1]$. This is because you have to account for the different ways these last two configurations can occur (i.e. with $[2,1,0]$ you can have the first and second ball in cell 1, first and third, or second and third), whereas there's only one way for $[3,0,0]$ to occur.



          Describing the process as "random" is never enough to determine the probability space of a problem like this. Your interpretation isn't wrong per se, but with them mentioning the balls are indistinguishable, in probability courses the expected calculation given that language is to assume that the final configurations have uniform probability of occurring. They definitely could have made that clearer in the question.







          share|cite|improve this answer








          New contributor



          Solipsist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.








          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer






          New contributor



          Solipsist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.








          answered 7 hours ago









          SolipsistSolipsist

          1446 bronze badges




          1446 bronze badges




          New contributor



          Solipsist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.




          New contributor




          Solipsist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.























              1












              $begingroup$

              $frac13$ is the probability that any one of the three balls falls into a cell. But in the second interpretation, since you've eliminated one cell, one would think that the probability space becomes different. Now you're distributing three balls into two cells. If you were to imagine a sample space for the the second interpretation , then you could create three disjoint spaces within the universal sample space: $A_1$, $A_2$, and $A_3$. For example, $A_1$ would be the sample space with the first cell not filled, $A_2$ the sample space with the second cell not filled, and $A_3$ would be the sample space with the third cell not filled. Let's consider the elements that make up $A_1$ for the moment. How were the elements in $A_1$ generated? We know that the balls are dropped randomly, but now we've said that the first cell cannot be filled. So even if we're performing a real-world experiment, there is a physical cell that is to remain empty. To make things more concrete we can just throw away the first cell. Thus interpreting this physical experiment mathematically means that we're essentially considering only cells $2$ and $3$ in $A_1$. We now see that the elements in $A_1 cup A_2 cup A_3$ are the elements in which two cells are filled by three balls randomly.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$

















                1












                $begingroup$

                $frac13$ is the probability that any one of the three balls falls into a cell. But in the second interpretation, since you've eliminated one cell, one would think that the probability space becomes different. Now you're distributing three balls into two cells. If you were to imagine a sample space for the the second interpretation , then you could create three disjoint spaces within the universal sample space: $A_1$, $A_2$, and $A_3$. For example, $A_1$ would be the sample space with the first cell not filled, $A_2$ the sample space with the second cell not filled, and $A_3$ would be the sample space with the third cell not filled. Let's consider the elements that make up $A_1$ for the moment. How were the elements in $A_1$ generated? We know that the balls are dropped randomly, but now we've said that the first cell cannot be filled. So even if we're performing a real-world experiment, there is a physical cell that is to remain empty. To make things more concrete we can just throw away the first cell. Thus interpreting this physical experiment mathematically means that we're essentially considering only cells $2$ and $3$ in $A_1$. We now see that the elements in $A_1 cup A_2 cup A_3$ are the elements in which two cells are filled by three balls randomly.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  $frac13$ is the probability that any one of the three balls falls into a cell. But in the second interpretation, since you've eliminated one cell, one would think that the probability space becomes different. Now you're distributing three balls into two cells. If you were to imagine a sample space for the the second interpretation , then you could create three disjoint spaces within the universal sample space: $A_1$, $A_2$, and $A_3$. For example, $A_1$ would be the sample space with the first cell not filled, $A_2$ the sample space with the second cell not filled, and $A_3$ would be the sample space with the third cell not filled. Let's consider the elements that make up $A_1$ for the moment. How were the elements in $A_1$ generated? We know that the balls are dropped randomly, but now we've said that the first cell cannot be filled. So even if we're performing a real-world experiment, there is a physical cell that is to remain empty. To make things more concrete we can just throw away the first cell. Thus interpreting this physical experiment mathematically means that we're essentially considering only cells $2$ and $3$ in $A_1$. We now see that the elements in $A_1 cup A_2 cup A_3$ are the elements in which two cells are filled by three balls randomly.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  $frac13$ is the probability that any one of the three balls falls into a cell. But in the second interpretation, since you've eliminated one cell, one would think that the probability space becomes different. Now you're distributing three balls into two cells. If you were to imagine a sample space for the the second interpretation , then you could create three disjoint spaces within the universal sample space: $A_1$, $A_2$, and $A_3$. For example, $A_1$ would be the sample space with the first cell not filled, $A_2$ the sample space with the second cell not filled, and $A_3$ would be the sample space with the third cell not filled. Let's consider the elements that make up $A_1$ for the moment. How were the elements in $A_1$ generated? We know that the balls are dropped randomly, but now we've said that the first cell cannot be filled. So even if we're performing a real-world experiment, there is a physical cell that is to remain empty. To make things more concrete we can just throw away the first cell. Thus interpreting this physical experiment mathematically means that we're essentially considering only cells $2$ and $3$ in $A_1$. We now see that the elements in $A_1 cup A_2 cup A_3$ are the elements in which two cells are filled by three balls randomly.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 6 hours ago









                  K.MK.M

                  8654 silver badges13 bronze badges




                  8654 silver badges13 bronze badges



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3291985%2finterpreting-the-word-randomly%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

                      Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

                      François Viète Contents Biography Work and thought Bibliography See also Notes Further reading External links Navigation menup. 21Google Bookspp. 75–77Google BooksDe thou (from University of Saint Andrews)ArchivedGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle booksGoogle Bookscc-parthenay.frL'histoire universelle (fr)Universal History (en)ArchivedAdsabs.harvard.eduPagesperso-orange.frArchive.orgChikara Sasaki. Descartes' mathematical thought p.259Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle Bookspp. 152 and onwardGoogle BooksGoogle BooksScribd.comGoogle Books1257-7979Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGallica.bnf.frGoogle BooksGoogle Books"François Viète"Francois Viète: Father of Modern Algebraic NotationThe Lawyer and the GamblerAbout TarporleySite de Jean-Paul GuichardL'algèbre nouvelle"About the Harmonicon"cb120511976(data)1188044800000 0001 0913 5903n82164680ola2013766880073431702w6vt1sb70287374827140948071409480