10

Pair of fair die are rolled (independently I hope) infinitely. Find probability sum of 5 appears before sum of 7.

2 approaches:

  1. $$P(\text{sum of 5 appears before sum of 7})$$

$$= P(\text{roll 1 is 5})$$

$$+ P(\text{roll 2 is 5, roll 1 is not 7})$$

$$+ P(\text{roll 3 is 5, roll 1,2 are not 7})$$

$$+ P(\text{roll 4 is 5, roll 1,2,3 are not 7})$$

$$+ \ldots$$

  1. $$P(\text{sum of 5 appears before sum of 7})$$

$$= P(\text{roll 1 is 5})$$

$$+ P(\text{roll 2 is 5, roll 1 is not 7}, \ \color{red}{\text{roll 1 is not 5}})$$

$$+ P(\text{roll 3 is 5, roll 1,2 are not 7}, \ \color{red}{\text{roll 1,2 are not 5}})$$

$$+ P(\text{roll 4 is 5, roll 1,2,3 are not 7}, \ \color{red}{\text{roll 1,2,3 are not 5}})$$

$$+ \ldots$$

Which if any is right?


Mathematically:

Let $n = 1,2,...$

Let $A_n$ be probability that sum of 5 appears on roll $n$

Let $B_n$ be probability that sum of 7 appears on roll $n$

Let $B_0^C = \Omega$

Observe that $A_n$ and $B_n$ are disjoint. Hence $A_n \subseteq B_n^C$

Approach 1 gives:

$$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} P(A_n \cap \bigcap_{m=0}^{n} B_m^C)$$

$$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} P(A_n \cap \bigcap_{m=0}^{\color{red}{n-1}} B_m^C)$$

$$ = \frac{4}{36} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} (\frac{30}{36})^{n-1}$$

Approach 2 gives:

$$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} P(A_n \cap \bigcap_{m=0}^{n} B_m^C \color{red}{\cap \bigcap_{m=0}^{n-1} A_m^C})$$

$$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} P(A_n \cap \bigcap_{m=0}^{\color{red}{n-1}} B_m^C \color{red}{\cap \bigcap_{m=0}^{n-1} A_m^C})$$

$$ = \frac{4}{36} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} (\frac{30}{36})^{n-1} \color{red}{(\frac{32}{36})^{n-1}}$$


What is the weakest independence assumption we need to make?

For approach 1 it seems that we need to assume independence of

$$A_n, B_1, B_2, ..., B_{n-1}$$.

For approach 2 it seems that we need to assume independence of

$$A_1, A_2, ..., A_n, B_1, B_2, ..., B_{n-1}$$.

Is that right?

BCLC
  • 13,459

3 Answers3

13

A simple approach would be to "split the world" into two events:

  • The event in which a sum of $5$ appears before a sum of $7$
  • The event in which a sum of $7$ appears before a sum of $5$

Since these are complementary events, the probability that either one of them will occur is $1$.


Now, the probability of a sum of $5$ is $\color\red{1/9}$, and the probability of a sum of $7$ is $\color\green{1/6}$.

Therefore:

  • The probability that a sum of $5$ appears before a sum of $7$ is $\frac{\color\red{1/9}}{\color\red{1/9}+\color\green{1/6}}=\frac25$
  • The probability that a sum of $7$ appears before a sum of $5$ is $\frac{\color\green{1/6}}{\color\red{1/9}+\color\green{1/6}}=\frac35$
barak manos
  • 43,109
10

I do not give an answer to your question(s) (yet), but hand over a different approach.

Probability corresponding with sum $5$ is $\frac{4}{36}$ and probability corresponding with sum $7$ is $\frac{6}{36}$.

Neglecting the other outcomes we find a probability $\frac{4}{10}$ for sum $5$ and $\frac{6}{10}$ for sum $7$.

If on base of these probabilities a choice is made then the probability that sum $5$ is chosen (i.e. comes before sum $7$) is: $$\frac25$$


edit:

Your first approach is wrong and your second is correct (but tedious). See the answer of Micapps.

Let $E_{k}$ denotes the event that at the $k$-roll for the first time a sum of $5$ or $7$ appears.

Then more formally we have: $$P\left(\text{sum }5\text{ appears first}\right)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}P\left(\text{sum }5\text{ appears first}\mid E_{k}\right)P\left(E_{k}\right)=$$$$\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}P\left(\text{sum }5\text{ appears at roll }k\mid E_{k}\right)P\left(E_{k}\right)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{2}{5}P\left(E_{k}\right)=\frac{2}{5}$$

drhab
  • 151,093
  • Wait what about the mathematical formulation and the weakest independence assumption? – BCLC Jun 16 '16 at 09:45
  • 1
    What exactly do you mean by that? – drhab Jun 16 '16 at 09:46
  • drhab, is my mathematical representation of my second approach correct? What independence assumption/s might we make? – BCLC Jun 16 '16 at 09:51
  • 1
    See my formal answer in the edit. No assumptions of independence are made there. The only thing that matters is that at each roll we have the the same chances. – drhab Jun 16 '16 at 10:08
7

In your first approach the events are not disjoint: For example the event where the first two rolls are $5$ is contained in both of the first two events.

In the second approach the events are disjoint and their union is the event that $5$ appeared before $7$, so this is the way to go.

Indidentally, if we can assume the throws are all independent, a neat trick in solving this sort of problem is as follows: Let $p$ be the probability that $5$ appears before $7$. By the law of complete probability we have:

$p = \Pr[5\text{ appears on first roll}] + \Pr[\text{first roll is not }5\text{ or }7]\cdot\Pr[5\text{ appears before }7\ |\text{ first roll is not }5\text{ or }7]$

Now, because of the self-similar nature of the problem we get:

$\Pr[5\text{ appears before }7\ |\text{ first roll is not }5\text{ or }7]=p$

Plugging numbers in the first equation we get:

$$p=\frac{4}{36}+\frac{26}{36}p\implies\frac{5}{18}p=\frac{1}{9}\implies p=\frac{2}{5}$$


Regarding "mathematical formulation" of the second approach: The way you've presented the problem by defining the events $A_n,B_n$ is correct as far as I can tell, in the sense that it encodes the intuition given at the start of the question.

Regarding independence: In order to move from the probability of an intersection of events to the product of their probabilities in general you need independence. You may be able to get away with something "weaker" (which you would have to specify), but I have no clue what the "weakest" assumption would be.

Micapps
  • 1,385
  • Wait what about the mathematical formulation and the weakest independence assumption? – BCLC Jun 16 '16 at 09:45
  • The approach above (as well as your approach #2, from where you plug in the numbers) use the independence of the distinct dice rolls. Without this assumption the answer would (in general) change, and would probably be much more difficult to compute directly (although everything that doesn't involve actual numbers would still be correct). – Micapps Jun 16 '16 at 09:50
  • 1
    Mathematical formulation: Not sure what you mean by this. – Micapps Jun 16 '16 at 09:51
  • Micapps, about mathematical formulation: is my mathematical representation of my second approach correct? – BCLC Jun 16 '16 at 09:51
  • Micapps, what exactly is the independence assumption to make? Do we need to assume independence of $A_1, A_2, ..., B_1, B_2, ...$ (which I think is equivalent to independence of $A_1, A_2, ..., A_n, B_1, B_2, ..., B_n$ for all n)? I thought of a weaker independence assumption: $A_1, A_2, ..., A_n, B_1, B_2, ..., B_{n-1}$ for all n. Oh wait, are they equivalent too? – BCLC Jun 16 '16 at 09:53
  • I believe each of those three formulations is equivalent. – Micapps Jun 16 '16 at 09:58
  • 2
    The only thing that matters is that the chances on sum $5$ or sum $7$ are constant. For that you do not need independency. If e.g. you would work under the condition that every roll will have the same outcome (heavily dependent) as the first roll then still the answer is $\frac25$. Independence is not essential here. See my answer for a proof that also works under dependency. – drhab Jun 16 '16 at 10:31
  • @Micapps Thanks ^-^ – BCLC Jun 16 '16 at 18:52
  • @drhab Thanks ^-^ – BCLC Jun 16 '16 at 18:52