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

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,429

Have you ever seen anything like that done before?

**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.**

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

Can't say that I have... could be that he is correct, just using a bad, or insufficient explanation.

There used to be 3 stats questions in STEP. Barely anyone chose them and always focused on pure and sometimes mechanics, so they now have only 2 instead, and stats is still the least popular section of the paper.

Out of the 248 questions I have done, only 18 were stats...

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,429

What a shame. I have never worked on one like this. If you get the solution to it please post it.

I am going to eat, see you in a bit.

**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.**

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

Okay, see you later.

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,429

Just made a sandwich. Did not take long.

**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.**

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

Probably my favourite food on the go, even butter sandwiches will do...

Haven't made much progress with the problem, still trying to understand it. All I know is that it is like saying a currant can lie anywhere in the area underneath y = 2x, between 0 and 1.

I am thinking of having two continuous uniform distributions L ~ [0, 1] for the x-axis, and M ~ [0, 2L] for the y-axis, but is there some way of combining the two?

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,429

Yes, there is a joint distribution, but does that solve the problem.

You know that symbol ~ ? In mathematica they call it a condition, what do you call it?

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.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

I thought it just meant 'has the distribution' in this context...

I don't think it will solve the problem. Still trying to work out how the probability that a currant is in the portion is x.

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,429

That's it, "the distribution" that is the correct phrase.

First thing, that answer he got might not be correct.

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.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

Lots of posters seem to be agreeing with him though...

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,429

Yea, the good ones there are saying he is right.

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.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

There was a poster called ben-smith who didn't understand the solution and the answers they gave in that thread didn't help either.

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,429

I am looking through my library in the statistics books. Someone has to have done a problem like this somewhere.

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.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

Okay, let me know if you find anything.

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,429

Are you kidding? I will be jumping up and down with joy. I would post it right here.

What title or type of problem would you call this?

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.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

The paper hasn't given it a title. Not sure what I'd call it...

Sometimes they post very difficult questions in STEP. They say that in the 2012 paper there was a problem no one in the maths department at Cambridge could solve, so they put it in the 2012 STEP paper to see what would happen. And then 2008 STEP III featured a question only 3 people in the country managed to get right (it was a stats question also).

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,429

That might be why I am not coming across something like it in these texts. I need to get some rest see you later and thanks bringing the problem in.

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.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

Okay, see you later.

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,429

Hi;

I am back and resuming the search.

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.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

Okay, thanks. I asked Hanh and she has no clue either, she could not do the first part. If adriana comes online I will ask her what she thinks.

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,429

Hi;

Okay, but I doubt they will have an answer.

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.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

I doubt she will come online to help, either.

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,429

You mean in here?

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.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

No, on chat or by e-mail.

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,429

Oh, she might. Based on that question she will be needing lots of help.

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.

Offline