A familiar probability question

  • Thread starter Thread starter mesarmath
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Probability
Click For Summary
The probability question involves finding the likelihood that x, chosen randomly from the interval [0,1], is greater than the product of y and z, also selected from the same interval. The solution is determined to be 3/4 through a double integral calculation. The area above the surface defined by the equation x = yz represents the probability geometrically. For each fixed value of y and z, the proportion of x greater than yz corresponds to the volume above this surface. The discussion clarifies the confusion between curves and surfaces in this context.
mesarmath
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
hi,

i have been studying for GRE subject

and i saw this question but i could not solve it

x , y and z are selected independently and at random from the interval [0,1], then the probability that x is bigger than y*z is ?

the answer is 3/4

but i want to know how? , i guess it should be solved by double integral.

thanks in advance for any help

edit: i just figured out that \int_{0}^{1} \int_{0}^{1} (1-yz) dy dz = 3/4
but i could not figure out how the area above the curve x=yz represents that probability geometrically ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi mesarmath! :smile:
mesarmath said:
… but i could not figure out how the area above the curve x=yz represents that probability geometrically ?

(it ain't a curve, it's a surface :wink:)

Because for each value y and z, the proportion of x > yz is the proportion below the surface, which is yz/1, and the proportion of x > yz is the proportion above the surface, which is (1 - yz)/1.
 
tiny-tim said:
Hi mesarmath! :smile:


(it ain't a curve, it's a surface :wink:)

Because for each value y and z, the proportion of x > yz is the proportion below the surface, which is yz/1, and the proportion of x > yz is the proportion above the surface, which is (1 - yz)/1.


thanks

so we were looking for a volume,
curve was the thing that makes me confused

thanks again :)
 
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 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K