Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
* * * * - 1 votes

Hitting 137


Best Answer Prime, 14 January 2013 - 09:32 PM

It seems to stand the reason...

Spoiler for just a guess

Go to the full post


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 bonanova

bonanova

    bonanova

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5884 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 14 January 2013 - 08:35 PM

If I repeatedly throw a fair 6-sided die, what is the probability that the running total will at one point equal 137?


  • 0
The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.
- Bertrand Russell

#2 bushindo

bushindo

    Senior Member

  • VIP
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 14 January 2013 - 09:25 PM

If I repeatedly throw a fair 6-sided die, what is the probability that the running total will at one point equal 137?

 

With some recursive code, I get

 

Spoiler for


  • 1

#3 CaptainEd

CaptainEd

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1094 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 09:32 PM

Spoiler for Bushindo's surprising value of


Edited by CaptainEd, 14 January 2013 - 09:32 PM.

  • 1

#4 Prime

Prime

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 872 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois, US

Posted 14 January 2013 - 09:32 PM   Best Answer

It seems to stand the reason...

Spoiler for just a guess


  • 1

Past prime, actually.


#5 BobbyGo

BobbyGo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 131 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 January 2013 - 10:21 PM

Spoiler for I must be way off


  • 0

#6 bonanova

bonanova

    bonanova

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5884 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 15 January 2013 - 01:22 AM

Bushindo has seven decimal places; the Captain has it exactly, if surprisingly; and Prime has the insight.
A triple tag team solution! Good job all. So who gets the "solved" tag .... ?

The nod goes to Prime's explanation.
  • 0
The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.
- Bertrand Russell

#7 Prime

Prime

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 872 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois, US

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:31 AM

Thanks Bonanova. My explanation does look sound. But now, after I have taken some time to reflect, I must disprove and disown my solution.

Sure, the fraction that we found here is good for everyday gambling needs, but it is not the exact probability.

I suspect, Bushindo’s method would have produced the exact answer, had it not succumbed to rounding error.

 

Spoiler for Proof of falsehood, but not the answer.


  • 0

Past prime, actually.


#8 CaptainEd

CaptainEd

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1094 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:54 PM

Prime, your "disproof" notwithstanding, we should congratulate you on your insight that has identified the limit towards which any experiment to 137 should tend (IMH and Naive Opinion). I'm interested to understand about Bushindo's recursive code. My contribution was only to respond to Bushindo's numeric result, as it matches the cyclic stream of digits I learned in childhood.


  • 0

#9 BobbyGo

BobbyGo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 131 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2013 - 05:01 PM

Thanks Bonanova. My explanation does look sound. But now, after I have taken some time to reflect, I must disprove and disown my solution.

Sure, the fraction that we found here is good for everyday gambling needs, but it is not the exact probability.

I suspect, Bushindo’s method would have produced the exact answer, had it not succumbed to rounding error.

 

Spoiler for Proof of falsehood, but not the answer.

 

I'm glad I wasn't too far off in my thinking.  I had a similar approach, but only considered 131 - 136 when trying to calculate the odds for 137.  I had wrongly assumed each number 131 - 136 would have an equal likelyhood of being hit irrespective of of the likelyhood of any of the previous numbers.

 

I do have a question about one part of your disproof:

 

 

Spoiler for Question

  • 0

#10 bushindo

bushindo

    Senior Member

  • VIP
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:06 PM

Prime, your "disproof" notwithstanding, we should congratulate you on your insight that has identified the limit towards which any experiment to 137 should tend (IMH and Naive Opinion). I'm interested to understand about Bushindo's recursive code. My contribution was only to respond to Bushindo's numeric result, as it matches the cyclic stream of digits I learned in childhood.

 

Here is the recursive code I used. The logic behind it is already described by Prime's excellent and insightful analysis.

Spoiler for

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users