Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Robert A Cohen wrote:
... After one throw, there are (1-p) left. After n throws, there
are (1-p)^n left. We want to know the number of throws, n,
that leave us with 1/2 left: (1-p)^n = 1/2
Solve for n to get n = - ln(2) / ln (1-p)
Very good. Too bad I could not do this myself yesterday.
So, what is the discrepancy caused by using p rather
than ln(1-p)?
That is not what I was referring to. I was talking about
using lambda instead of p. For p=1/6, according to your
formula, the half-life n= 3.801 throws. Use this to calculate
lambda = ln(2)/n=0.245. That is the paradox. We started
with p=1/6 (each pencil has six sides) and we concluded
that the probability of decay per unit time is not 1/6.
My point was that we should not identify p with lambda.
By definition, lambda is the probability of decay per a
negligibly small unit time. On the other hand, p, is the
probability that a pencil will land with its label up. It is
also a probability of decay per unit time but that unit is
not small in comparison with n. Now I am using your
notation for the half-life, n; yesterday I referred to it as T.
T = ln(2) / (1/36) = 24.95 rolls
T = ln(2) / ln(1-1/36) = 24.61 rolls