Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**gAr****Member**- Registered: 2011-01-09
- Posts: 3,462

I see.

For now, simulations for me too.

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?

"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,413

Your formula does look interesting though and I will play with it. Who knows, I might get lucky.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**gAr****Member**- Registered: 2011-01-09
- Posts: 3,462

Yes, I'm also working on it.

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?

"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."

Offline

**gAr****Member**- Registered: 2011-01-09
- Posts: 3,462

Here's a joint distribution formula for four consecutive terms:

l_a : no. of cards less than a

s_b : number of cards selected having face value of b

nh : no. of positions available after placing the given 4 numbers

E.g.

Suppose we wanted to know the probability of sorted order to be 5 6 7 8, starting from 4th position:

We take the variables as:

5 5 5 8:

5 5 5 5: change s_d to s_a in the formula and

*Last edited by gAr (2014-02-04 23:03:45)*

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?

"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,413

Hi gAr;

I was busy doing some chores so I could not get to it till now. I will try it on some problems.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**gAr****Member**- Registered: 2011-01-09
- Posts: 3,462

Hi,

Okay.

"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,413

Found the Kendall books but have not looked through them yet.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**gAr****Member**- Registered: 2011-01-09
- Posts: 3,462

Hi,

Which book is that?

"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,413

The ones on Advanced Statistics. So far they are not very good.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**gAr****Member**- Registered: 2011-01-09
- Posts: 3,462

Okay.

"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,413

They claimed that the books were used for the writing of the probability routines in Maple. I got little out of them so far.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**gAr****Member**- Registered: 2011-01-09
- Posts: 3,462

I see.

"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,413

Hi gAr;

Suppose we wanted to know the probability of sorted order to be 5 6 7 8, starting from 4th position:

Does this mean x x x x 5 6 7 8, where x are cards?

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**gAr****Member**- Registered: 2011-01-09
- Posts: 3,462

Hi,

... starting from 4th position

x x x 5 6 7 8 x

"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,413

Oh boy, I forgot how to count!

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**gAr****Member**- Registered: 2011-01-09
- Posts: 3,462

Never mind, happens!

"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,413

Hi gAr;

For your first example of 5,6,7,8 ( x x x 5 6 7 8 x ) I am getting a simulation answer about 1 / 10 th as large as predicted. What are you getting?

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**gAr****Member**- Registered: 2011-01-09
- Posts: 3,462

Hi,

My simulation answer is close: 0.0056

From the formula: 4162400 / C(52,8)

"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,413

That is very close to what I am getting with a simulation too. But the formula is not giving that answer. I will check that I have not made some error.

Okay, first problem checks out. On to the second one.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**gAr****Member**- Registered: 2011-01-09
- Posts: 3,462

You got it right?

"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,413

Hi gAr;

I finally got the same answer you did. Then I had connection problems for 5 hours finally got back online.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**gAr****Member**- Registered: 2011-01-09
- Posts: 3,462

Hi,

That's good!

"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,413

Hi gAr;

The second example checks out and on to the third...

Update:

The third example checks out! Ooooba oooba oooba, oooga ooog ooga! That means Wunderbar!

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**eigenguy****Member**- Registered: 2014-03-18
- Posts: 78

Forgive me, please, for taking this thread all the way back to the beginning, and also if someone else has pointed this out in those thousands of posts I have despaired of hunting through to check:

bobbym wrote:

How would you judge this answer? And why?

The question itself and the replies given suggest this is wrong, but I would judge this answer correct. The following theorems are all easily proved:

The calculation shown follows from them.

"Having thus refreshed ourselves in the oasis of a proof, we now turn again into the desert of definitions." - Bröcker & Jänich

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,413

Hi;

Did you see post #9 in this same thread?

Scientia and JFF are well grounded in questions like these.

Their complaint starts right here:

Courtesy of Wikipedia:

If f is a real-valued (or complex-valued) function, then taking the limit is compatible with the algebraic operations, provided the limits on the right sides of the equations below exist (the last identity only holds if the denominator is non-zero). This fact is often called the algebraic limit theorem.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline