# In general, is it easier to solve problems that have random variables, or problems that are basically the same that don't [closed]

This question is asked because I don't understand how random variables will affect various math problems, and knowledgeable mathematicians would.

By easier, we mean less steps

• If we make our own problems, random variables are wholly optional. Why? Because if we wanted random variables in a non-random variable problem, we just add a random source to the example problem. Having a random source automatically makes the variables into "random variables" for a problem.
• The variables being random variables or not doesn't seen to make any difference to certain example problems

A quick concrete example --
You have a bunch of range of numbers (like $33$ to $77$), which represents your IQ,
each with a corresponding percentage which represents your chance of getting cancer. That is what is inside one set.

There are many sets and each set has different continuous numbers and percentage

You find a comparative trend to solve this.

This example can be made random just by having the IQ number be randomly generated instead of already given. Now you have random variables. But these random variables don't seem to really affect the problem or example at all .

Beacause all we care about is the trend between the number and percents, and how they relate to the other numbers and percent in the other sets.

Here's another example where you can easily make the problem have random variables or not -- what math topic is this kind of example part of? or what is needed to understand how to solve it?, but I think the problem is fundamentally different from the IQ example.

-
Could you give an example of what you mean? It is hard to read a question about facts out of this ... –  Hagen von Eitzen Sep 29 '12 at 11:24
Do you really mean random variable or are you talking about creating word problems by picking numbers in a special way so that certain quantities exactly cancel out vs. picking numbers less deliberately? –  binn Sep 29 '12 at 13:04
@high are you confused by the fact that there is nothing random about a random variable ? (i.e. it s just a specific kind of function). What definition are you using when you talk about a "random variable" ? –  Beltrame Sep 29 '12 at 17:09
the definition of a random var im using is "if the source or the outcome is random, then you have random variables." -- yes i mean random variables -- stats.stackexchange.com/questions/38247/does-anyone-know-what-exactly-is-a-rando‌​m-variable –  kittensatplay Sep 30 '12 at 23:40
a concrete example that i made is stats.stackexchange.com/questions/38235/formula-for-a-comparative-trend-any-of-t‌​hese-http-stattrek-com-statistics –  kittensatplay Sep 30 '12 at 23:43

## closed as not constructive by Hagen von Eitzen, whuber, Michael Greinecker♦, Qiaochu YuanOct 7 '12 at 4:06

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.