RE: math question verrrrrry off topic
In Chris' original question and in all the subsequent floundering around, I didn't see anyone ask, How many institutions were in the jar? With just two the odds would be quite different. Was there a limit to the number each could enter? Those qualities would certainly change the odds, as would the quality of work entered and the emphasis placed on the competition by the other institutions. What are the odds that a teacher should feel good about getting three of her students selected in such a competition? Very high and I say, GREAT! Next they'll want to know what is wrong with the other X number of students. hehehehehe Eric Neilsen Photography 4101 Commerce Street Suite 9 Dallas, TX 75226 http://e.neilsen.home.att.net http://ericneilsenphotography.com Skype ejprinter > -----Original Message----- > From: Iain [mailto:iain.coghill@eiflex.com] > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 2:08 PM > To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca > Subject: Re: math question verrrrrry off topic > > Sorry, the value I quoted was 150! too large. > > It is a bit academic though as we are only interested in m! results > where m is the number of entries from Montana State University faculty, > which could be as low as 3! leaving the remaining > 12779168511110343121743686684712978601166067528647159599210122229587477945 > 94 > 5942798968735988572227507979644437906069421788093063476741931161574090 > combinations to fight it out between themselves. > > Yves Gauvreau wrote: > > Ian, > > > > may be it's just a typo but C(n,m) = > > > > 600! > > ------------------- > > 150!(600-150)! > > > > = > > > 12779168511110343121743686684712978601166067528647159599210122229587477945 > 94 > > 5942798968735988572227507979644437906069421788093063476741931161574096 > > > > I t is however way much larger then what usual software can endle and > this > > is why I said it's infinite. Still remains the problem that somewhere in > > these gazillion sets of 150 are our 3 people from institution A. > > > > Yves > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Iain" <iain.coghill@eiflex.com> > > To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca> > > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 12:56 PM > > Subject: Re: math question verrrrrry off topic > > > > > > > >> There are actually 600!/(600 - 150)! ways to randomly pick 150 items > >> from a bag of 600, where n! (pronounced n-factorial) is defined as 1 x > 2 > >> x 3 x ... x (n-1) x n. If you don't care about which order those 150 > are > >> picked you can divide that number by 150! - giving roughly 57 followed > >> by 261 zeroes > >> > >> Yves Gauvreau wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> if one consider the number of ways to pick randomly 150 items in a bag > >>> > > with > > > >>> 600 items in it, then the answer is infinity and whatever you do after > >>> > > that > > > >>> like multiplying it by a tiny tiny tiny probability, even then your > >>> > > stock > > > >>> with infinity. > >>> > >>> One would need to approach this problem another way and in our case > the > >>> > > 150 > > > >>> people are not choosen randomly in practice. The only other way around > >>> > > to > > > >>> give an answer to Chris, is to find out what's in the bag. For > example, > >>> > > say > > > >>> we fill the bag with 10 oranges and ask someone to pick 3 items in > that > >>> > > bag, > > > >>> what is the probability of getting 3 oranges. 100% of course but if > the > >>> > > bag > > > >>> contains 3 oranges, 4 bananas and 3 pear, the answer is différent of > >>> > > course. > > > >>> All this to say we need to know what's in the bag. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Yves > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Katharine Thayer" <kthayer@pacifier.com> > >>> To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca> > >>> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 9:51 AM > >>> Subject: Re: math question verrrrrry off topic > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Okay, look. > >>>> > >>>> If this were a simple probability experiment, let's say there were > >>>> 600 objects in a big jar, all exactly the same size and shape and > >>>> differing only in color: 450 red ones (for not-accepted) and 150 > >>>> green ones (for "accepted") all mixed up really well, and the > >>>> question was, "if some people from College X reached into the jar > >>>> blindfolded and three of them pulled out green objects, what would > >>>> the probability of that result be, would it be 1/4x1/4x1/4?" then > >>>> the answer would be "only if just three people from College X > >>>> reached into the jar. If more than three people from college x > >>>> reached into the jar, let's say five people from college x reached > >>>> into the jar, then the probability of three of those five people > >>>> pulling out a green marble would be 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/4 x 3/4 x 3/4." > >>>> > >>>> But of course this isn't anything like that. In this case, the 600 > >>>> objects in the jar are made by the people who are being selected, and > >>>> the objects are all different, all different sizes and shapes and > >>>> colors, and made of different materials. People might contribute > >>>> different numbers of objects (though it's never been clear to me > >>>> whether that's the case or not) in which case the objects made by the > >>>> same person presumably aren't as different from each other as the > >>>> objects made by different people. And the selection is made not by > >>>> the people themselves reaching into the jar blindfolded, but by a > >>>> third party, a judge, who also doesn't reach into the jar blindfolded > >>>> and pull out objects randomly to make a selection, but pours them all > >>>> out on in a big tray and looks at all 600 of them closely before > >>>> deciding which ones he/she wants to include. This particular judge > >>>> might be drawn to metal objects, or even especially to platinum over > >>>> silver, or maybe he or she particularly dislikes street scenes and > >>>> prefers pictures of old mills, or is looking for a certain level of > >>>> craftsmanship in the work, or maybe the criterion is something even > >>>> more difficult to articulate, whether the judge "likes" something or > >>>> not. Whatever the criteria, by the end of the day, the objects are > >>>> separated into two piles, "accepted" and "not accepted," and there > >>>> are 150 objects in the first pile and 450 in the second pile. > >>>> > >>>> I hope it should be clear to everyone at this point how different > >>>> this is from the problem above, and why you can't treat this as a > >>>> problem of simple probability and say that the probability of any > >>>> entry being accepted is the same as the probability of any other > >>>> entry being accepted, and that this equal probability for each entry > >>>> is 1/4, since 1/4 of all the entries were accepted. It's just not > >>>> that kind of problem, and it doesn't work to treat it that way. > >>>> Thank you. > >>>> Katharine > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jan 18, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Katharine Thayer wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> :--) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Jan 18, 2008, at 6:23 PM, Diana Bloomfield wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hey Katharine, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I don't know-- maybe. I honestly didn't read the other answers. > :) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Jan 18, 2008, at 8:43 PM, Katharine Thayer wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hmm, I thought that's what we all already have said, isn't it? > >>>>>>> That that theoretical probability (1/4x1/4x1/4) would hold only > >>>>>>> if assumptions were met, and since assumptions are obviously not > >>>>>>> met (for example, judging is not a random lottery of course but > >>>>>>> is done on the basis of criteria, arbitrary or otherwise but > >>>>>>> certainly not random). Also, no one has said whether the 600 > >>>>>>> entries are 600 works or 600 people; I was assuming that they are > >>>>>>> 600 works representing fewer than 600 people, in other words > >>>>>>> people could submit more than one work, in which case, as I said, > >>>>>>> the number of works submitted per person would also have to be > >>>>>>> figured into the equation somehow. Besides, if one person > >>>>>>> submits ten pieces and another person submits one, the ten pieces > >>>>>>> by the one person couldn't be considered independent entries in > >>>>>>> the same way one of those ten could be considered independent of > >>>>>>> the one from the other person, and independence is also an > >>>>>>> assumption that must be met in order to consider the probability > >>>>>>> of acceptance to be the same for all entries. > >>>>>>> Katharine > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Jan 18, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Diana Bloomfield wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Okay, Chris. Here is it-- straight from my resident > >>>>>>>> statistician here: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If they were the only 3 people from that institution who > >>>>>>>> applied, AND if judging was completely random, then the > >>>>>>>> probability of this is roughly 1 in 64 (key word: roughly). If > >>>>>>>> more than that applied from this same institution, and only 3 > >>>>>>>> got in, then the calculation will be more complex. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hope that helps. :) > >>>>>>>> On Jan 17, 2008, at 12:00 PM, Christina Z. Anderson wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Where else but this list can I ask these weird questions about > >>>>>>>>> chemistry and math and computers and alt??? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> OK for you math people (Yves?): If there is a show and 600 > >>>>>>>>> entries, and 150 are accepted, there is a 1 in 4 chance of > >>>>>>>>> acceptance. If 3 people from the same institution are accepted > >>>>>>>>> what percent chance is that--is it 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/4 or a 1.5% > >>>>>>>>> chance or is it a more complex formula? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Forgive the off topic request but it does relate to photo as 3 > >>>>>>>>> of our program got into a photo show and I want to be able to > >>>>>>>>> mathematically brag about it to the dept. head/dean. > >>>>>>>>> Chris > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Christina Z. Anderson > >>>>>>>>> Assistant Professor > >>>>>>>>> Photo Option Coordinator > >>>>>>>>> Montana State University > >>>>>>>>> CZAphotography.com > >>>>>>>>> _______________ > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
|