1
$\begingroup$

Is it possible to build two dice such that the sum of the two dice follows an uniform distribution on $\{2,\dots,12\}$ ?

EDIT : Both dice must have sides 1-6, but the probability that the dice falls on a face can be chosen.


I am looking for a solution that gives the answer and a somewhat detailed reasoning, even though it might seem really easy for some people. I have some difficulties understanding how to solve that kind of problems (what method to follow), any comment towards that issue would be welcomed.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Must the two dice be identical to each other? (P.S. 'dice', not 'dices', is plural of die). $\endgroup$ – lemon Dec 1 '14 at 11:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You can use the dice ${0,0,0,6,6,6}$ and ${1,2,3,4,5,6}$. I can't really give a good explanation how I got it though, it just popped up in my head. $\endgroup$ – Arthur Dec 1 '14 at 11:45
  • $\begingroup$ Sure. Each die is in the shape of a regular dodecahedron. One die has sides numberd from $1$ to $12$, the other has $0$ on every side. $\endgroup$ – bof Dec 1 '14 at 11:46
  • $\begingroup$ Sum $1$ is impossible by definition. $\endgroup$ – barak manos Dec 1 '14 at 19:05
  • $\begingroup$ @barakmanos Sorry that was a typo $\endgroup$ – Hippalectryon Dec 1 '14 at 19:13
4
$\begingroup$

Let $a_i, b_i\in[0,1]$ be the probabilities that die $A, B$ shows $i+1$. (According to the edit, $i$ can only range over $\{0,1,2,3,4,5\}$ for both dice). Let $f(z)=\sum a_iz^i$ and $g(z)=\sum b_i z^i$. Then the desired result is that $$f(z)g(z)=\sum_{j=0}^{10}\frac1{11}z^j,$$ a polynomial without real roots. Hence both $f$ and $g$ have no real roots, i.e. they must both have even degree. This implies $a_5=b_5=0$ and the the coefficient of $z^{10}$ in their product is also $0$, contradiction.

Remark: Why does $h(z)=\sum_{j=0}^{10}z^j$ not have real roots? We have $h(z)=\frac{1-z^{11}}{1-z}$ and the numerator has only one real root at $z=1$. But that is no root of $h$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Each dice can have values 1-6, not 0-5 :) (That doesn't affect your reasoning, but I thought you might want to edit it) $\endgroup$ – Hippalectryon Dec 1 '14 at 19:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Hippalectryon That's why $a_i$ is the probability that the die shows $i\color{red}{+1}$. This shifting got rid of a factor of $z^2$ and hence justifies the no-real-roots claim $\endgroup$ – Hagen von Eitzen Dec 1 '14 at 20:33

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.