Problems 004

By -
One-dimensional drunkard's walk:

Starting from Point X, you stumble discretely east (probability 1/2) and west (probability 1/2) and repeat, indefinitely. Successive stumbles are unrelated, i.e., the former does not in any way predict the latter (nor vice versa). In the long run, what is the average number of stumbles that will bring you back to Point X.

Comments

  1. Jared10:52 AM

    The number of ways to get back to point X for the first time in exactly 2*n stumbles is 2*C(n-1), where C(n) is the nth Catalan number. We can first take one stumble to the east, then there are C(n-1) ways of stumbling 2(n-1) times without getting back to X (for example, by bijection to the number of strings of matching parentheses of length 2(n-1)), and then take a final stumble to the west; plus the mirror images where we stumble first to the west.

    Thus, the probability of it taking exactly 2*n stumbles is 2*C(n-1)/2^(2*n), and thus the expected number of stumbles is the sum from n=1 to infinity of 4*n*C(n-1)/4^n. However, C(n) is on the order of pi^(-1/2)*4^n/n^(3/2), so that expression is on the order of 1/(n*pi)^(1/2), so the sum diverges.

    The expected value is infinite.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more