2
$\begingroup$

I'm stuck on answering a problem in the famous Berteskas & Tsitsiklis probability book:

The premise

Imagine a TV game show where each contestant i spins an infinitely calibrated wheel of fortune, which assigns him/her with some real number with a value between 1 and 100. All values are equally likely and the value obtained by each contestant is independent of the value obtained by any other contestant.

Let N be the integer-valued random variable whose value is the index of the first contestant who is assigned a smaller number than contestant 1. As an illustration, if contestant 1 obtains a smaller value than contestants 2 and 3 but contestant 4 has a smaller value than contestant 1 (X4 < X1), then N = 4. Find P(N > n) as a function of n.

What I did for the first part, finding $P(N > n)$, I saw that it was a geometric distribution, with the chance that a number is larger than a given $n$, is $(100-n)/99$, since the random variable of the wheel # is uniformly distributed.

Thus, for the given geometric distribution, if we want $N$-th roll to be the roll where the number is first lesser than the 1st roll, we must give the following probability:

$P(N \gt n) = ((100-n)/99)^{N-1} ((n-1)/99)$ Which is effectively saying we want the first $N-1$ rolls to be greater than the first roll, and the last one to be the complement, or:$1-(100-n)/99 = (n-1)/99$.

So now that we have this, assuming it's correct, I'm stuck on the following:

Find E[N], assuming an infinite number of contestants.

I know that the expected value formula is the following:

$ sum_{x=2}^{\infty} xp_x(x)$ where x is the index of the contestant. However, the contestant's probability also relies on the value of the initial value of the first spin. Is the next logical step to decompose into a double sum and evaluate that? Or is it something completely different?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ First, there’s a piece of information missing from the problem: what is the value of $N$ if the first contestant’s spin is the smallest? ($1$ seems reasonable.) In addition, you’re confusing $n$ in $P(N\gt n)$ with the result of the first contestant’s spin. You can see that there’s something wrong with your solution so far by considering the case of only two contestants: by symmetry, $P(n>1)$ must be $1/2$, that is, the second contestant has a smaller spin half of the time, but your solution produces $(1-1)/99=0$. $\endgroup$ – amd Jan 3 '17 at 3:31
1
$\begingroup$

There are a few problems with the first part, so I'll show what I have there first.

You're right that the geometric distribution is important here because you can look at players $2,3,\ldots$ as making successive attempts to beat player one's roll and we're interested in the distribution of the number of attempts.

Say the first player rolls $c \in [1,100].$ Then the probability that a player fails to roll smaller than $c$ (i.e. rolls larger than $c$) is $$ 1 -\frac{c-1}{99} $$

The event that $N>n$ occurs whenever contestants $2-n$ fail to roll smaller than c. Since they all roll independently this gives $$ P(N>n \mid c) = \left(1 - \frac{c-1}{99}\right)^{n-1} $$ as the probability that the first contestant that rolls less than player 1 has index greater than n, given player 1 rolled c.

Then to get the unconditional probability we just integrate out c, which is uniformly distributed on [1,100]: $$ P(N>n) = \int dc P(N>n\mid c) P(c) = \int_1^{100}\frac{dc}{99}\left(1 - \frac{c-1}{99}\right)^{n-1} = \frac{1}{n}. $$

There is a faster way to get this. Let $X_1,X_2\ldots$ be the values of the players' rolls. Consider the first $n$ players' rolls. By symmetry, each ordering of the values of the rolls $X_1 < X_2 < X_3 \ldots$ or $X_2 < X_1 < X_4 \ldots$ or whatever the order is, is equally likely. $N>n,$ is equivalent to whenever $X_1$ is the smallest of the first $n$ rolls. There must be a $1/n$ probability by symmetry.

Now that you have $P(N>n)$ you can get $E(N)$ as follows:

We can rewrite the random variable $N$ as $$ N = 1 + \sum_{k =1}^\infty I(N>k) $$ where $I(N>n)$ is $1$ when $N>n$ and $0$ otherwise. This formula becomes obvious if you stare at it for a bit. There sum just counts all of the numbers less than $N$ (of which there are $N-1$) and adds one. Taking the expected value of both sides: $$ E(N) = 1 + \sum_{k=1}^\infty P(N>k) $$ where we used the fact that $E(I(N>n)) = P(N>n).$ Thus your expected value is $$ E(N) = 1 + \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k} = \infty. $$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Hey space! I'm a little bit confused as to how you did the last part, mainly the process of taking expected value of both sides, and also used the fact(that I couldn't get) of $P(N>n) = E(I(N>n))$. Could you give me some hints? $\endgroup$ – OneRaynyDay Jan 3 '17 at 18:17
  • $\begingroup$ I understood the work that you did up until then, but then I used the standard expectation equation which included the probability of N=n. I got P(N=n) from P(N>n)-P(N>n-1) which I thought was intuitive. Right now don't have pen or paper with me but I'll verify that my method works. $\endgroup$ – OneRaynyDay Jan 3 '17 at 18:26
  • $\begingroup$ @OneRaynyDay Computing $P(n=N)$ in the way you mentioned and then summing $E(N) = \sum_n nP(N=n)$ should work as well. As for your question on my method, think of how you'd compute the expectation value of $I(N>n),$ the random variable that is 1 whenever $N$ winds up being greater than $n$ and 0 otherwise. You would wind up summing the probabilities of all the outcomes with $N>n$ right? (Cause those would have I(N>n) = 1 while the other outcomes have I(N>n) 0). Does it make sense why $E(I(N>n)) = P(N>n)$? $\endgroup$ – spaceisdarkgreen Jan 3 '17 at 23:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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