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

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

Pages: **1**

**ShivamS****Member**- Registered: 2011-02-07
- Posts: 3,463

Flip a coin 2N times, where N is large. Let P(x) be the probability of obtaining

exactly N + x heads. Show that P(x) = e^((-x^2)/N) divides by sqrt of pi times N

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,042

Hi;

Is this what you want

to prove?

**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.**

**Online**

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,885

I don't think that would be correct, then.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,042

I do not think so either.

**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.**

**Online**

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,885

It does seem to work without the minus sign, though.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

How do you do that?

'And fun? If maths is fun, then getting a tooth extraction is fun. A viral infection is fun. Rabies shots are fun.'

'God exists because Mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists because we cannot prove it'

'Humanity is still kept intact. It remains within.' -Alokananda

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,042

Hi;

Do what?

The answer is

that I can prove.

**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.**

**Online**

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,885

That is what the original problem is asking for. But I cannot get it. I am using the limit definition and Stirling's formula.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**ShivamS****Member**- Registered: 2011-02-07
- Posts: 3,463

Post 7 is what I need proven/

Offline

**ShivamS****Member**- Registered: 2011-02-07
- Posts: 3,463

Can you prove it then?

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,885

Hi Shivamcoder3013

Have you tried taking the limit as N goes to infinity of the ratio of the exact answer and the approximate one and proving it equals 1?

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,042

Hi;

The paper I am looking at "Gaussian and Coins."

Using Stirlings:

Notice the approximately equal sign that is because you are approximated a discrete distribution ( binomial ) with the Normal distribution.

1) is an approximation for 2) which the above steps prove. Even for large N it is still an approximation. When N approaches infinity 1) = 2).

To prove that you might need the limit but maybe since Stirlings formula is asymptotic to the factorial it might be implied in step 3.

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.

**Online**

**ShivamS****Member**- Registered: 2011-02-07
- Posts: 3,463

I am not getting how you get that...

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,042

Hi Shivamcoder3013;

I am not getting much of the derivation either. It is a lot of algebra and undoubtedly was done with the help of a package. I put it down so you would have something.

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.

**Online**

**ShivamS****Member**- Registered: 2011-02-07
- Posts: 3,463

Ok, I will try to think about it a bit. Thanks a lot.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,885

Hi bobbym

Have you tried getting the limit of the ratio of the two expressions (the exact one and the approximate one)? It does not approach 1.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 83,042

yields 0.001079819330263761

The exact answer is:

yields 0.0010798643294

Seems pretty good. Try for larger n with x small in comparison to convince yourself numerically.

anonimnystefy wrote:

Have you tried getting the limit of the ratio of the two expressions (the exact one and the approximate one)? It does not approach 1.

I think the limit is 1.

According to M that is true. Why do you think the limit is not 1?

bobbym wrote:

To prove that you might need the limit but maybe since Stirlings formula is asymptotic to the factorial it might be implied in step 3.

Stirlings is an asymptotic form for the factorial. The limit of the ratio of Stirlings and the factorial is 1. The fact that he use Stirlings in his proof guarantees the above limit.

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.

**Online**

Pages: **1**