Possibly flawed probability computation in Red Dward XI?
I watched the new episodes Red Dwarf series XI. In episode 3 there is a scene where Rimmer and Lister play a game called minopoly. Rimmer is
throwing a pair of dice while he wishes the outcome NOT to be "a two and a one".
Before his first throw he correctly calculates that probability of getting that unwanted result is $frac{1}{18}$as there are 36 possible outcomes, two of them (two and one, one and two) are unwanted which yields $frac{2}{36} = frac{1}{18}$.
He then proceeds to throw again several more times getting the unwanted outcome every single time. With each new throw he announces the probability of getting the unwanted outcome in that throw. The probability he calculates is getting smaller and smaller because he multiplies the whole sequence of probabilities together so in $n$-th throw he gets $frac{2^n}{6^{2n}} = frac{2^n}{36^n} = (frac{1}{18})^n $.
I wonder if that is a correct computation. Shouldn't the probability of getting the unwanted result with each new throw be always $frac{1}{18}$? What am I missing?
Sorry if it is a dumb question but no one was able to explain it to me since high school.
Thank you for your replies.
probability dice
asked Nov 25 at 13:27
V.Mach
61
add a comment |
I watched the new episodes Red Dwarf series XI. In episode 3 there is a scene where Rimmer and Lister play a game called minopoly. Rimmer is
throwing a pair of dice while he wishes the outcome NOT to be "a two and a one".
Before his first throw he correctly calculates that probability of getting that unwanted result is $frac{1}{18}$as there are 36 possible outcomes, two of them (two and one, one and two) are unwanted which yields $frac{2}{36} = frac{1}{18}$.
He then proceeds to throw again several more times getting the unwanted outcome every single time. With each new throw he announces the probability of getting the unwanted outcome in that throw. The probability he calculates is getting smaller and smaller because he multiplies the whole sequence of probabilities together so in $n$-th throw he gets $frac{2^n}{6^{2n}} = frac{2^n}{36^n} = (frac{1}{18})^n $.
I wonder if that is a correct computation. Shouldn't the probability of getting the unwanted result with each new throw be always $frac{1}{18}$? What am I missing?
Sorry if it is a dumb question but no one was able to explain it to me since high school.
Thank you for your replies.
probability dice
asked Nov 25 at 13:27
V.Mach
61
It's a correct calculation of something related to the game, but maybe not of what you understood it to be. What are his precise words he uses to describe what he's calculating?
– kimchi lover
Nov 25 at 13:46
Red Dwarf is a sitcom, and Arnold J. Rimmer is an idiot. It would be a miracle is he got anything right.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Nov 25 at 14:02
@kimchilover The game itself is irrelevant. The whole question really just boils down to the fundamental idea - the probability of the outcome of a random event which has been repeated number of times in a sequence.
– V.Mach
Nov 25 at 18:23
add a comment |
I watched the new episodes Red Dwarf series XI. In episode 3 there is a scene where Rimmer and Lister play a game called minopoly. Rimmer is
throwing a pair of dice while he wishes the outcome NOT to be "a two and a one".
Before his first throw he correctly calculates that probability of getting that unwanted result is $frac{1}{18}$as there are 36 possible outcomes, two of them (two and one, one and two) are unwanted which yields $frac{2}{36} = frac{1}{18}$.
He then proceeds to throw again several more times getting the unwanted outcome every single time. With each new throw he announces the probability of getting the unwanted outcome in that throw. The probability he calculates is getting smaller and smaller because he multiplies the whole sequence of probabilities together so in $n$-th throw he gets $frac{2^n}{6^{2n}} = frac{2^n}{36^n} = (frac{1}{18})^n $.
I wonder if that is a correct computation. Shouldn't the probability of getting the unwanted result with each new throw be always $frac{1}{18}$? What am I missing?
Sorry if it is a dumb question but no one was able to explain it to me since high school.
Thank you for your replies.
probability dice
asked Nov 25 at 13:27
V.Mach
61
I watched the new episodes Red Dwarf series XI. In episode 3 there is a scene where Rimmer and Lister play a game called minopoly. Rimmer is
throwing a pair of dice while he wishes the outcome NOT to be "a two and a one".
Before his first throw he correctly calculates that probability of getting that unwanted result is $frac{1}{18}$as there are 36 possible outcomes, two of them (two and one, one and two) are unwanted which yields $frac{2}{36} = frac{1}{18}$.
He then proceeds to throw again several more times getting the unwanted outcome every single time. With each new throw he announces the probability of getting the unwanted outcome in that throw. The probability he calculates is getting smaller and smaller because he multiplies the whole sequence of probabilities together so in $n$-th throw he gets $frac{2^n}{6^{2n}} = frac{2^n}{36^n} = (frac{1}{18})^n $.
I wonder if that is a correct computation. Shouldn't the probability of getting the unwanted result with each new throw be always $frac{1}{18}$? What am I missing?
Sorry if it is a dumb question but no one was able to explain it to me since high school.
Thank you for your replies.
probability dice
probability dice
asked Nov 25 at 13:27
V.Mach
61
asked Nov 25 at 13:27
V.Mach
61
asked Nov 25 at 13:27
V.Mach
61
asked Nov 25 at 13:27
V.Mach
61
asked Nov 25 at 13:27
V.Mach
61
61
It's a correct calculation of something related to the game, but maybe not of what you understood it to be. What are his precise words he uses to describe what he's calculating?
– kimchi lover
Nov 25 at 13:46
Red Dwarf is a sitcom, and Arnold J. Rimmer is an idiot. It would be a miracle is he got anything right.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Nov 25 at 14:02
@kimchilover The game itself is irrelevant. The whole question really just boils down to the fundamental idea - the probability of the outcome of a random event which has been repeated number of times in a sequence.
– V.Mach
Nov 25 at 18:23
add a comment |
It's a correct calculation of something related to the game, but maybe not of what you understood it to be. What are his precise words he uses to describe what he's calculating?
– kimchi lover
Nov 25 at 13:46
Red Dwarf is a sitcom, and Arnold J. Rimmer is an idiot. It would be a miracle is he got anything right.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Nov 25 at 14:02
@kimchilover The game itself is irrelevant. The whole question really just boils down to the fundamental idea - the probability of the outcome of a random event which has been repeated number of times in a sequence.
– V.Mach
Nov 25 at 18:23
It's a correct calculation of something related to the game, but maybe not of what you understood it to be. What are his precise words he uses to describe what he's calculating?
– kimchi lover
Nov 25 at 13:46
It's a correct calculation of something related to the game, but maybe not of what you understood it to be. What are his precise words he uses to describe what he's calculating?
– kimchi lover
Nov 25 at 13:46
Red Dwarf is a sitcom, and Arnold J. Rimmer is an idiot. It would be a miracle is he got anything right.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Nov 25 at 14:02
Red Dwarf is a sitcom, and Arnold J. Rimmer is an idiot. It would be a miracle is he got anything right.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Nov 25 at 14:02
@kimchilover The game itself is irrelevant. The whole question really just boils down to the fundamental idea - the probability of the outcome of a random event which has been repeated number of times in a sequence.
– V.Mach
Nov 25 at 18:23
@kimchilover The game itself is irrelevant. The whole question really just boils down to the fundamental idea - the probability of the outcome of a random event which has been repeated number of times in a sequence.
– V.Mach
Nov 25 at 18:23
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
While $(1/18)^n$ is the probability of everything so far, $1/18$ is the conditional probability of the latest upset given what came before, so both values are right on some reading. The Red Dwarf V episode Quarantine has a similar scene, where they again use cumulative rather than conditional probabilities. The luck virus allows Dave to pick all 4 aces from the pack, with successive probabilities $frac{1}{13},,frac{1}{221},,frac{1}{5525},,frac{1}{270725}$. Again, the stated values are all correct, if interpreted as cumulative (otherwise Kryten should have said $frac{1}{13},,frac{1}{17},,frac{1}{25},,frac{1}{49}$).
answered Nov 25 at 14:18
J.G.
22.1k22034
Thank you for your answer. It still isn't 100% clear though. According to this answer: math.stackexchange.com/a/829918/619483 past outcomes do not influence future outcomes. Citing: "The mistake that previous outcomes affect future outcomes is commonly called the gambler's fallacy." This sounds like Rimmer is doing exactly that - thinking that his past unwanted outcomes should increase the probability of his wanted outcome in the next throw.
– V.Mach
Nov 25 at 18:19
@V.Mach I don't have a transcript in front of me, but I doubt Rimmer made completely explicit whether he was stating $P(forall ile n X_i=(2,,1))=(1/18)^n$ (which is right) or $P(X_n=(2,,1)|forall i<n X_i=(2,,1))=(1/18)^n$ (which is wrong). Even in a comedy setting, I find the latter less likely (since it's not an example of any common fallacy), and the former implies he doesn't think the past influences the future.
– J.G.
Nov 25 at 18:24
The point is he throws up to 5 or 6 times and is gradually more and more surprised with each throw by the repeating unwanted outcomes. My question is why. If in every throw the probability of getting {2,1} is $frac{1}{18}$, then the measure of his surprise shouldn't rise but rather be constant.
– V.Mach
Nov 25 at 18:34
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3012827%2fpossibly-flawed-probability-computation-in-red-dward-xi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
While $(1/18)^n$ is the probability of everything so far, $1/18$ is the conditional probability of the latest upset given what came before, so both values are right on some reading. The Red Dwarf V episode Quarantine has a similar scene, where they again use cumulative rather than conditional probabilities. The luck virus allows Dave to pick all 4 aces from the pack, with successive probabilities $frac{1}{13},,frac{1}{221},,frac{1}{5525},,frac{1}{270725}$. Again, the stated values are all correct, if interpreted as cumulative (otherwise Kryten should have said $frac{1}{13},,frac{1}{17},,frac{1}{25},,frac{1}{49}$).
answered Nov 25 at 14:18
J.G.
22.1k22034
Thank you for your answer. It still isn't 100% clear though. According to this answer: math.stackexchange.com/a/829918/619483 past outcomes do not influence future outcomes. Citing: "The mistake that previous outcomes affect future outcomes is commonly called the gambler's fallacy." This sounds like Rimmer is doing exactly that - thinking that his past unwanted outcomes should increase the probability of his wanted outcome in the next throw.
– V.Mach
Nov 25 at 18:19
@V.Mach I don't have a transcript in front of me, but I doubt Rimmer made completely explicit whether he was stating $P(forall ile n X_i=(2,,1))=(1/18)^n$ (which is right) or $P(X_n=(2,,1)|forall i<n X_i=(2,,1))=(1/18)^n$ (which is wrong). Even in a comedy setting, I find the latter less likely (since it's not an example of any common fallacy), and the former implies he doesn't think the past influences the future.
– J.G.
Nov 25 at 18:24
The point is he throws up to 5 or 6 times and is gradually more and more surprised with each throw by the repeating unwanted outcomes. My question is why. If in every throw the probability of getting {2,1} is $frac{1}{18}$, then the measure of his surprise shouldn't rise but rather be constant.
– V.Mach
Nov 25 at 18:34
add a comment |
While $(1/18)^n$ is the probability of everything so far, $1/18$ is the conditional probability of the latest upset given what came before, so both values are right on some reading. The Red Dwarf V episode Quarantine has a similar scene, where they again use cumulative rather than conditional probabilities. The luck virus allows Dave to pick all 4 aces from the pack, with successive probabilities $frac{1}{13},,frac{1}{221},,frac{1}{5525},,frac{1}{270725}$. Again, the stated values are all correct, if interpreted as cumulative (otherwise Kryten should have said $frac{1}{13},,frac{1}{17},,frac{1}{25},,frac{1}{49}$).
answered Nov 25 at 14:18
J.G.
22.1k22034
Thank you for your answer. It still isn't 100% clear though. According to this answer: math.stackexchange.com/a/829918/619483 past outcomes do not influence future outcomes. Citing: "The mistake that previous outcomes affect future outcomes is commonly called the gambler's fallacy." This sounds like Rimmer is doing exactly that - thinking that his past unwanted outcomes should increase the probability of his wanted outcome in the next throw.
– V.Mach
Nov 25 at 18:19
@V.Mach I don't have a transcript in front of me, but I doubt Rimmer made completely explicit whether he was stating $P(forall ile n X_i=(2,,1))=(1/18)^n$ (which is right) or $P(X_n=(2,,1)|forall i<n X_i=(2,,1))=(1/18)^n$ (which is wrong). Even in a comedy setting, I find the latter less likely (since it's not an example of any common fallacy), and the former implies he doesn't think the past influences the future.
– J.G.
Nov 25 at 18:24
The point is he throws up to 5 or 6 times and is gradually more and more surprised with each throw by the repeating unwanted outcomes. My question is why. If in every throw the probability of getting {2,1} is $frac{1}{18}$, then the measure of his surprise shouldn't rise but rather be constant.
– V.Mach
Nov 25 at 18:34
add a comment |
While $(1/18)^n$ is the probability of everything so far, $1/18$ is the conditional probability of the latest upset given what came before, so both values are right on some reading. The Red Dwarf V episode Quarantine has a similar scene, where they again use cumulative rather than conditional probabilities. The luck virus allows Dave to pick all 4 aces from the pack, with successive probabilities $frac{1}{13},,frac{1}{221},,frac{1}{5525},,frac{1}{270725}$. Again, the stated values are all correct, if interpreted as cumulative (otherwise Kryten should have said $frac{1}{13},,frac{1}{17},,frac{1}{25},,frac{1}{49}$).
answered Nov 25 at 14:18
J.G.
22.1k22034
While $(1/18)^n$ is the probability of everything so far, $1/18$ is the conditional probability of the latest upset given what came before, so both values are right on some reading. The Red Dwarf V episode Quarantine has a similar scene, where they again use cumulative rather than conditional probabilities. The luck virus allows Dave to pick all 4 aces from the pack, with successive probabilities $frac{1}{13},,frac{1}{221},,frac{1}{5525},,frac{1}{270725}$. Again, the stated values are all correct, if interpreted as cumulative (otherwise Kryten should have said $frac{1}{13},,frac{1}{17},,frac{1}{25},,frac{1}{49}$).
answered Nov 25 at 14:18
J.G.
22.1k22034
answered Nov 25 at 14:18
J.G.
22.1k22034
answered Nov 25 at 14:18
J.G.
22.1k22034
answered Nov 25 at 14:18
J.G.
22.1k22034
22.1k22034
Thank you for your answer. It still isn't 100% clear though. According to this answer: math.stackexchange.com/a/829918/619483 past outcomes do not influence future outcomes. Citing: "The mistake that previous outcomes affect future outcomes is commonly called the gambler's fallacy." This sounds like Rimmer is doing exactly that - thinking that his past unwanted outcomes should increase the probability of his wanted outcome in the next throw.
– V.Mach
Nov 25 at 18:19
@V.Mach I don't have a transcript in front of me, but I doubt Rimmer made completely explicit whether he was stating $P(forall ile n X_i=(2,,1))=(1/18)^n$ (which is right) or $P(X_n=(2,,1)|forall i<n X_i=(2,,1))=(1/18)^n$ (which is wrong). Even in a comedy setting, I find the latter less likely (since it's not an example of any common fallacy), and the former implies he doesn't think the past influences the future.
– J.G.
Nov 25 at 18:24
The point is he throws up to 5 or 6 times and is gradually more and more surprised with each throw by the repeating unwanted outcomes. My question is why. If in every throw the probability of getting {2,1} is $frac{1}{18}$, then the measure of his surprise shouldn't rise but rather be constant.
– V.Mach
Nov 25 at 18:34
add a comment |
Thank you for your answer. It still isn't 100% clear though. According to this answer: math.stackexchange.com/a/829918/619483 past outcomes do not influence future outcomes. Citing: "The mistake that previous outcomes affect future outcomes is commonly called the gambler's fallacy." This sounds like Rimmer is doing exactly that - thinking that his past unwanted outcomes should increase the probability of his wanted outcome in the next throw.
– V.Mach
Nov 25 at 18:19
@V.Mach I don't have a transcript in front of me, but I doubt Rimmer made completely explicit whether he was stating $P(forall ile n X_i=(2,,1))=(1/18)^n$ (which is right) or $P(X_n=(2,,1)|forall i<n X_i=(2,,1))=(1/18)^n$ (which is wrong). Even in a comedy setting, I find the latter less likely (since it's not an example of any common fallacy), and the former implies he doesn't think the past influences the future.
– J.G.
Nov 25 at 18:24
The point is he throws up to 5 or 6 times and is gradually more and more surprised with each throw by the repeating unwanted outcomes. My question is why. If in every throw the probability of getting {2,1} is $frac{1}{18}$, then the measure of his surprise shouldn't rise but rather be constant.
– V.Mach
Nov 25 at 18:34
Thank you for your answer. It still isn't 100% clear though. According to this answer: math.stackexchange.com/a/829918/619483 past outcomes do not influence future outcomes. Citing: "The mistake that previous outcomes affect future outcomes is commonly called the gambler's fallacy." This sounds like Rimmer is doing exactly that - thinking that his past unwanted outcomes should increase the probability of his wanted outcome in the next throw.
– V.Mach
Nov 25 at 18:19
Thank you for your answer. It still isn't 100% clear though. According to this answer: math.stackexchange.com/a/829918/619483 past outcomes do not influence future outcomes. Citing: "The mistake that previous outcomes affect future outcomes is commonly called the gambler's fallacy." This sounds like Rimmer is doing exactly that - thinking that his past unwanted outcomes should increase the probability of his wanted outcome in the next throw.
– V.Mach
Nov 25 at 18:19
@V.Mach I don't have a transcript in front of me, but I doubt Rimmer made completely explicit whether he was stating $P(forall ile n X_i=(2,,1))=(1/18)^n$ (which is right) or $P(X_n=(2,,1)|forall i<n X_i=(2,,1))=(1/18)^n$ (which is wrong). Even in a comedy setting, I find the latter less likely (since it's not an example of any common fallacy), and the former implies he doesn't think the past influences the future.
– J.G.
Nov 25 at 18:24
@V.Mach I don't have a transcript in front of me, but I doubt Rimmer made completely explicit whether he was stating $P(forall ile n X_i=(2,,1))=(1/18)^n$ (which is right) or $P(X_n=(2,,1)|forall i<n X_i=(2,,1))=(1/18)^n$ (which is wrong). Even in a comedy setting, I find the latter less likely (since it's not an example of any common fallacy), and the former implies he doesn't think the past influences the future.
– J.G.
Nov 25 at 18:24
The point is he throws up to 5 or 6 times and is gradually more and more surprised with each throw by the repeating unwanted outcomes. My question is why. If in every throw the probability of getting {2,1} is $frac{1}{18}$, then the measure of his surprise shouldn't rise but rather be constant.
– V.Mach
Nov 25 at 18:34
The point is he throws up to 5 or 6 times and is gradually more and more surprised with each throw by the repeating unwanted outcomes. My question is why. If in every throw the probability of getting {2,1} is $frac{1}{18}$, then the measure of his surprise shouldn't rise but rather be constant.
– V.Mach
Nov 25 at 18:34
add a comment |
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3012827%2fpossibly-flawed-probability-computation-in-red-dward-xi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
It's a correct calculation of something related to the game, but maybe not of what you understood it to be. What are his precise words he uses to describe what he's calculating?
– kimchi lover
Nov 25 at 13:46
Red Dwarf is a sitcom, and Arnold J. Rimmer is an idiot. It would be a miracle is he got anything right.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Nov 25 at 14:02
@kimchilover The game itself is irrelevant. The whole question really just boils down to the fundamental idea - the probability of the outcome of a random event which has been repeated number of times in a sequence.
– V.Mach
Nov 25 at 18:23