Hard Jelly Bean Problem

By -
This is somewhat similar to one I posted here years ago, but, I suspect, is much harder. Be warned.

A hat (upside down, of course) contains a black jelly beans and b orange jelly beans. You reach in and randomly remove a jelly bean. If it is black, you return it to the hat with a probability of p, otherwise you eat it. If it is orange, you return it to the hat with a probability of q, otherwise you eat it. What is the probability that the last jelly bean in the hat will be black?/orange?

Note that p and q are independent of each other, and cannot be one.

Good luck.

Comments

  1. Anonymous10:02 PM

    Normal distribution? π

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous10:11 PM

    This is a trick question on the Cauchy Distribution, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jonathan Finegold Catalán11:24 PM

    0, because this person loves black jelly beans and purposefully searches for it to eat it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wabulon12:39 AM

    No, dear ones, there is a specific f(a,b,p,q). No trick, just hard. Hey, lookit me--I love hard problems and have touched this one.

    And JFC: I did say "randomly".

    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