MHB Probability of Getting 3 A's & 2 B's in 5 Rounds

  • Thread starter Thread starter oriel1
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the probability of obtaining three A's and two B's from a machine with three possible outcomes: A, B, and C. The initial calculation using the formula for combinations and probabilities was deemed correct, despite concerns about the result being greater than 1. It was clarified that while the binomial distribution is not applicable due to the presence of three outcomes, the multinomial distribution can be used instead. The final probability calculated is small, which some participants found surprising. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the appropriate statistical methods for different scenarios.
oriel1
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
There is lucky machine with 3 results (letters):
A,B,C
P(A)=0.2 (Probabilty to get A)
P(B)=0.3 "" "" ""
P(C)=0.5
Each round you get just one letter.
You played 5 times.
What the probability that you got three times "A" and two times "B".

i thinked to do that:
$$0.2^{3}$$$$\cdot*$$$$0.3^{2}$$$$\frac{{5}!}{{2}!\left({3}\right)!}$$
$$\frac{{5}!}{{2}!\left({3}\right)!}$$ is the number of options to get that result.
But it doesn't make any sense. because $$\frac{{5}!}{{2}!\left({3}\right)!}$$=10 and if the probabilty is higher then 0.1 the result will be >1 and it can't happen.
There is any good solution for this problem ? binomial distribution or something?
Thank you.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hi oriel,

Your calculation looks good to me! You found the probability of one sequence of 3 A's and 2 B's, then multiplied by the number of sequences. Indeed if $(.2^3 \cdot .3^2)$ were greater than .1, then we would have a problem, but it isn't. If you multiply your answer out, we get a valid probability. This isn't proof that the answer is correct, but it isn't outside the range of a probability calculation.
 
I was typing an answer but then I saw Jameson's post and he basically gave the answer. Your calculation is fine! Now, I want to add a comment to your final question: can we use a binomial distribution here? The answer is no. The binomial distribution can only be used in experiments where you have two possible outcomes (a failure and a success). Here you have three. However, you can use the multinomial distribution which is a generalization of the binomial distribution for $k$ different outcomes. If you're interested then I suggest you read the wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinomial_distribution

You'll notice that your calculation is exactly how the probability would be calculated if you had explicitly used the multinomial distribution.

Finally, the probability is indeed small ... do you find the result surprising?
 
Last edited:
Jameson said:
Hi oriel,

Your calculation looks good to me! You found the probability of one sequence of 3 A's and 2 B's, then multiplied by the number of sequences. Indeed if $(.2^3 \cdot .3^2)$ were greater than .1, then we would have a problem, but it isn't. If you multiply your answer out, we get a valid probability. This isn't proof that the answer is correct, but it isn't outside the range of a probability calculation.
Siron said:
I was typing an answer but then I saw Jameson's post and he basically gave the answer. Your calculation is fine! Now, I want to add a comment to your final question: can we use a binomial distribution here? The answer is no. The binomial distribution can only be used in experiments where you have two possible outcomes (a failure and a success). Here you have three. However, you can use the multinomial distribution which is a generalization of the binomial distribution for $k$ different outcomes. If you're interested then I suggest you read the wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinomial_distribution

You'll notice that your calculation is exactly how the probability would be calculated if you had explicitly used the multinomial distribution.

Finally, the probability is indeed small ... do you find the result surprising?
Thank you very much for that clear explanation. I appreciate that.
 
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...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top