Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ ¹ ² ³ °
 

You are not logged in. #1 20120924 01:00:53
Statistic/Probability  Problems with ''at least'' in itHow do you go about solving problems like this? Is there a trick to it? #2 20120924 01:01:54
Re: Statistic/Probability  Problems with ''at least'' in itHi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #3 20120924 02:02:14
Re: Statistic/Probability  Problems with ''at least'' in itIs it safe to assume that we use the formula only if it has "at least" in the question? #4 20120924 02:07:15
Re: Statistic/Probability  Problems with ''at least'' in itHi;
An "at least" in the problem implies a range of values in this case1 to 5. So, you will have to sum 5 hypergeometric terms that is why there is a sum there. You could us for say exactly 5 women by saying low = 5 and high = 5. Then you would be summing only one term. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #5 20120924 08:02:25
Re: Statistic/Probability  Problems with ''at least'' in itThank you, Bobby. #6 20120924 08:05:29
Re: Statistic/Probability  Problems with ''at least'' in itYour welcome. May the computing be with you. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #7 20120924 12:40:01
Re: Statistic/Probability  Problems with ''at least'' in itHi, another question: #8 20120924 16:18:54
Re: Statistic/Probability  Problems with ''at least'' in itHi genericname; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. 