Skip to main content

Probability and Cumulative Dice Sums

Post a Comment

Learn One Weird Trick And Easily Solve The Product-Sum Problem

A tribute to Martin Gardner.

For which sets of positive integers does the sum equal the product? For example, when does \( x_1 + x_2 = x_1\cdot x_2\)? It's easy to see that this is only true when \(x_1 = x_2 = 2\).

In the general case our equality is \(\sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i= \prod_{i=1}^{n} x_i \). We can rearrange terms to give \[x_1+x_2+\sum_{i=3}^{n} x_i= x_1\cdot x_2\cdot \prod_{i=3}^{n} x_i,\] and this in turn factors nicely to give us \[\left( x_1\cdot \prod_{i=3}^{n} x_i - 1\right)\cdot \left( x_2\cdot \prod_{i=3}^{n} x_i - 1\right) = \left( \prod_{i=3}^{n} x_i \right)\cdot \left(\sum_{i=3}^{n} x_i \right) + 1.\] How does this help? Consider the case \(n=5\), and without loss of generality assume \(x_i \ge x_{i+1}\) for all \(i\). If \(x_3=x_4=x_5=1\) our factorized equation becomes \[(x_1-1)\cdot(x_2-1)=4,\] with the obvious solutions \( x_1=5, x_2=2; x_1=3, x_2=3\). The only remaining case to consider is \(x_3=2\), as any other case forces  \( \sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i < \prod_{i=1}^{n} x_i \). For this case our equality becomes \[\left( 2 x_1 - 1\right)\cdot \left( 2 x_2 - 1\right) = 9.\] This gives us the remaining solution \(x_1 = x_2 = x_3 = 2\) with the other \(x_i = 1\).

This is quite efficient. For example, for the case \(n=100\) the only equations we need to consider are \begin{aligned} (x_1-1)\cdot(x_2-1) &= 99\\
                         (2 x_1-1)\cdot(2 x_2-1) &= 199\\
                         (3 x_1-1)\cdot(3 x_2-1) &= 301\\
                         (4 x_1-1)\cdot(4 x_2-1) &= 405\\
                         (4 x_1-1)\cdot(4 x_2-1) &= 401\\
                         (6 x_1-1)\cdot(6 x_2-1) &= 607\\
                         (9 x_1-1)\cdot(9 x_2-1) &= 919\\
                         (8 x_1-1)\cdot(8 x_2-1) &= 809\\
                         (12 x_1-1)\cdot(12 x_2-1) &= 1225\\
                         (16 x_1-1)\cdot(16 x_2-1) &= 1633.
\end{aligned} Now 199, 401, 607, 919, 809 are all prime ruling them out immediately, and 301 and 1633 don't have factors of the right form. The other equations yield the five solutions \( (100,2), (34,4), (12,10), (7,4,4), (3,3,2,2,2) \) with the other \(x_i = 1\).

For \(n = 1000 \) you'd need to consider 52 cases, but most of these are eliminated immediately. I get the six solutions \( (1000,2), (334,4), (112,10), (38,28), (67,4,4), (16,4,4,4) \).

Have fun!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Simplified Multinomial Kelly

Here's a simplified version for optimal Kelly bets when you have multiple outcomes (e.g. horse races). The Smoczynski & Tomkins algorithm, which is explained here (or in the original paper): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion#Multiple_horses Let's say there's a wager that, for every $1 you bet, will return a profit of $b if you win. Let the probability of winning be \(p\), and losing be \(q=1-p\). The original Kelly criterion says to wager only if \(b\cdot p-q > 0\) (the expected value is positive), and in this case to wager a fraction \( \frac{b\cdot p-q}{b} \) of your bankroll. But in a horse race, how do you decide which set of outcomes are favorable to bet on? It's tricky, because these wagers are mutually exclusive i.e. you can win at most one. It turns out there's a simple and intuitive method to find which bets are favorable: 1) Look at \( b\cdot p-q\) for every horse. 2) Pick any horse for which \( b\cdot p-q > 0\) and mar...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mixed Models in R - Bigger, Faster, Stronger

When you start doing more advanced sports analytics you'll eventually starting working with what are known as hierarchical, nested or mixed effects models . These are models that contain both fixed and random effects . There are multiple ways of defining fixed vs random random effects , but one way I find particularly useful is that random effects are being "predicted" rather than "estimated", and this in turn involves some "shrinkage" towards the mean. Here's some R code for NCAA ice hockey power rankings using a nested Poisson model (which can be found in my hockey GitHub repository ): model The fixed effects are year , field (home/away/neutral), d_div (NCAA division of the defense), o_div (NCAA division of the offense) and game_length (number of overtime periods); offense (strength of offense), defense (strength of defense) and game_id are all random effects. The reason for modeling team offenses and defenses as random vs fixed effec...
3 comments
Read more

A Bayes' Solution to Monty Hall

For any problem involving conditional probabilities one of your greatest allies is Bayes' Theorem . Bayes' Theorem says that for two events A and B, the probability of A given B is related to the probability of B given A in a specific way. Standard notation: probability of A given B is written \( \Pr(A \mid B) \) probability of B is written \( \Pr(B) \) Bayes' Theorem: Using the notation above, Bayes' Theorem can be written:  \[ \Pr(A \mid B) = \frac{\Pr(B \mid A)\times \Pr(A)}{\Pr(B)} \] Let's apply Bayes' Theorem to the Monty Hall problem . If you recall, we're told that behind three doors there are two goats and one car, all randomly placed. We initially choose a door, and then Monty, who knows what's behind the doors, always shows us a goat behind one of the remaining doors. He can always do this as there are two goats; if we chose the car initially, Monty picks one of the two doors with a goat behind it at random. Assume we pick Door 1 an...
20 comments
Read more