Bertrand’s Box paradox: The answer is 2/3!!!

February 20, 2018 • 10:15 am

There are almost 200 comments now on my post about Bertrand’s Box Paradox yesterday. Let me reprise the problem and then give the solution the way I hit on it:

There are three boxes:

  1. a box containing two gold coins,
  2. a box containing two silver coins,
  3. a box containing one gold coin and a silver coin.

The ‘paradox’ is in this solution to this question. After choosing a box at random and withdrawing one coin at random, if that happens to be a gold coin, what is the probability that the next coin drawn from the same box will also be a gold coin?

In the discussion below, I’ll call the boxes #1, #2, and #3 in the order from left to right in this diagram, and use “coins” instead of “balls.”

The answer. People calculated this in various ways, some using Bayesian statistics, some, like me, a simple intuitive multiplication. But the two most common answers were 1/2 (50%) or 2/3 (67%). The latter answer is correct. Let me explain how I thought it through:

One you’ve drawn a gold coin, you know you’ve chosen from either the first or second box above. The third box, containing only silver coins, becomes irrelevant.

You’ve thus chosen a gold coin from the first two boxes. There are three gold coins among them, and thus if you picked a gold coin on your first draw, the probability that you chose from box #1 is 2/3. The probability that you chose it from box #2 is 1/3.

If you chose from box #1, the probability that you will then draw a second gold coin is 1 (100%).

If you chose from box #2, the probability that you will then draw a second gold coin is 0 (0%) for there are no gold coins left.

Thus, the overall probability that if you got a gold coin on the first pick then you will get another one if drawing from the same box is (2/3 X 1) + (1/3 X 0), or 2/3 (probability 67%).  The answer is thus 2/3 (probability 67%). 

If you don’t believe it, first check the Wikipedia explanation. It also explains why people think the probability is 50%, but fail to comprehend that it’s more likely, if you drew a gold coin on the first go, that the box you drew from is #1 than #2.

Then, if you still don’t believe it, try it yourself using either two or three boxes (you don’t really need three). That is, you can do an empirical test, though the explanation above should suffice. You will find that once you’ve drawn a gold coin on your first pick (you can just use two types of coins, with one box having like coins and the other unlike coins), the chance that you will draw another from the same box is 2/3. In other words, you’ll see that outcome 67% of the time. Remember, we are talking outcomes over a number of replicates, not a single try! You’d be safe betting against those who erroneously said 50%.

If you think Wikipedia is wrong and you’re right, good luck with correcting them!

 

Bertrand’s paradox

February 19, 2018 • 12:30 pm

Reader Peter sent me this paradox (it’s not really a “paradox” as I understand the meaning of that term, but a result that, like the Monty Hall problem, is deeply counterintuitive). It’s called Bertrand’s Box Paradox after French mathematician Joseph Bertrand, who raised it in an 1889 book on probabilities.

The setup is simple:

There are three boxes:

  1. a box containing two gold coins,
  2. a box containing two silver coins,
  3. a box containing one gold coin and a silver coin.

The ‘paradox’ is in this solution to this question. After choosing a box at random and withdrawing one coin at random, if that happens to be a gold coin, what is the probability that the next coin drawn from the same box will also be a gold coin?

A graphic representation:

I got it after a few minutes of cogitation, but I won’t give you the answer. The only hint is that it’s not what you’d first think, unless you’re a savant. Give your answer and reasoning in the comments, and I’ll chime in showing which answer is right. The link to the paradox at top gives the answer, but try not to look till you’ve given it a go.

It turns out that the probability is identical to that for winning by “switching doors” under the Monty Hall problem with three doors—and for pretty much the same reason.

A biological puzzle

December 15, 2016 • 7:45 am

This was called to my attention by reader Douglas Swartzenruber, who put it on his website, “A View from Planet Boulder”.  (Do not click the link yet).

First, there are these “moguls” made by skiers; Douglas explains:

For any non-skiers out there, moguls are formed on steeper slopes when numerous skiers follow the same route down and push snow to the side on each turn.  The snow begins to stack up and as more skiers follow the same line, the moguls grow, sometimes reaching heights of over 6 feet.  I have never been a fan of skiing moguls [not enough talent], but if you want to be impressed with mogul skiing, watch these incredible folks ski the bumps.

moguls

But then there are these moguls—on a fence. Who made them? Now you can click the link to see the answer:

picture-025

 

Snow puzzle

December 13, 2016 • 8:00 am

UPDATE: I’ve put Christopher’s response below in the comments; it’s #20.

Reader Christopher Moss sent this snow conundrum, and I’ll supply the answer in the comments at 11 a.m. Chicago time. Here’s the picture and the query, whose answer of course involves an animal.

My front deck with two inches of fluffy snow that fell yesterday. Ignoring the holes from drips off the roof that are seen at the bottom, do you see the chain-like raided elliptical blobs of snow, each with a longitudinal fracture down its centre? That’s the puzzle!
pc130509-1

Robot solves Rubik’s cube in one second

January 30, 2016 • 2:00 pm

Here’s a robot solving a Rubik’s cube in a tad over one second. It’s not an official record for a machine yet (that’s 2.39 seconds), but they’ll get the Guinness record before too long.

Gizmag gives more information about how the robot works, and I’ll let the geekier readers read the details there. There’s an interesting discussion in the YouTube comments about whether there’s a trick here, but I don’t think so.

You’re probably asking, “What’s the record for a human?” Well, here it is: Lucas Etter solving the cube in 4.90 seconds.