Building a triangle from random segments [duplicate]












2












$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:




  • Probability that a stick randomly broken in two places can form a triangle

    2 answers




The problem



Let's consider the interval $[0, 1]$. We break this interval randomly in two parts. Then we choose the bigger part and again we break it randomly into two parts. At the end we have three parts of the interval.

Breaking points are distributed uniformly.

I am to find the probability of getting a triangle from these three pieces.



My attempt



First of all let's notice that a triangle can be build iff:





  1. $a+b>c$,


  2. $|a-b| < c$,


where $a, b, c$ are lengths of our triangle sights.



Let's denote the breaking points by $x$ and $y$.

Suppose $x > frac{1}{2}$. We do have three intervals after breaking our segment: $[0, y], [y, x], [x, 1]$.



The first condition of triangle's existence is trivially fulfilled. The second one implies:
$$y > x - {1}{2} text{ and } y < frac{1}{2}.$$
I calculated that:
$$f_{Y|X}(y|x) = frac{f(x, y)}{int limits_{infty}^{infty}f_X(x) mathbb{1}_{[0,x]}(y) mbox{d}y}.$$
Where $f(x) = mathbb{1}_{[0,1]}(x)$ and $f(x, y) = mathbb{1}_{[0,1]}(x)mathbb{1}_{[0,x]}(y)$.



I don't really know how the integration should look like. I would appreciate any tips or hints.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$



marked as duplicate by Andrei, Don Thousand, Michael Hoppe, Pierre-Guy Plamondon, amWhy Dec 17 '18 at 21:54


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.











  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @M.Nestor while I have seen this question posed here before, and it definitely is a duplicate. The link you post is actually to a different formulation of the problem, where someone's simulation is giving a result other than the expected result.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug M
    Dec 17 '18 at 19:32










  • $begingroup$
    @DougM the answer of this problem is exactly twice of that in the linked question b/c we have been asked to break the longer piece.
    $endgroup$
    – achille hui
    Dec 17 '18 at 19:47
















2












$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:




  • Probability that a stick randomly broken in two places can form a triangle

    2 answers




The problem



Let's consider the interval $[0, 1]$. We break this interval randomly in two parts. Then we choose the bigger part and again we break it randomly into two parts. At the end we have three parts of the interval.

Breaking points are distributed uniformly.

I am to find the probability of getting a triangle from these three pieces.



My attempt



First of all let's notice that a triangle can be build iff:





  1. $a+b>c$,


  2. $|a-b| < c$,


where $a, b, c$ are lengths of our triangle sights.



Let's denote the breaking points by $x$ and $y$.

Suppose $x > frac{1}{2}$. We do have three intervals after breaking our segment: $[0, y], [y, x], [x, 1]$.



The first condition of triangle's existence is trivially fulfilled. The second one implies:
$$y > x - {1}{2} text{ and } y < frac{1}{2}.$$
I calculated that:
$$f_{Y|X}(y|x) = frac{f(x, y)}{int limits_{infty}^{infty}f_X(x) mathbb{1}_{[0,x]}(y) mbox{d}y}.$$
Where $f(x) = mathbb{1}_{[0,1]}(x)$ and $f(x, y) = mathbb{1}_{[0,1]}(x)mathbb{1}_{[0,x]}(y)$.



I don't really know how the integration should look like. I would appreciate any tips or hints.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$



marked as duplicate by Andrei, Don Thousand, Michael Hoppe, Pierre-Guy Plamondon, amWhy Dec 17 '18 at 21:54


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.











  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @M.Nestor while I have seen this question posed here before, and it definitely is a duplicate. The link you post is actually to a different formulation of the problem, where someone's simulation is giving a result other than the expected result.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug M
    Dec 17 '18 at 19:32










  • $begingroup$
    @DougM the answer of this problem is exactly twice of that in the linked question b/c we have been asked to break the longer piece.
    $endgroup$
    – achille hui
    Dec 17 '18 at 19:47














2












2








2





$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:




  • Probability that a stick randomly broken in two places can form a triangle

    2 answers




The problem



Let's consider the interval $[0, 1]$. We break this interval randomly in two parts. Then we choose the bigger part and again we break it randomly into two parts. At the end we have three parts of the interval.

Breaking points are distributed uniformly.

I am to find the probability of getting a triangle from these three pieces.



My attempt



First of all let's notice that a triangle can be build iff:





  1. $a+b>c$,


  2. $|a-b| < c$,


where $a, b, c$ are lengths of our triangle sights.



Let's denote the breaking points by $x$ and $y$.

Suppose $x > frac{1}{2}$. We do have three intervals after breaking our segment: $[0, y], [y, x], [x, 1]$.



The first condition of triangle's existence is trivially fulfilled. The second one implies:
$$y > x - {1}{2} text{ and } y < frac{1}{2}.$$
I calculated that:
$$f_{Y|X}(y|x) = frac{f(x, y)}{int limits_{infty}^{infty}f_X(x) mathbb{1}_{[0,x]}(y) mbox{d}y}.$$
Where $f(x) = mathbb{1}_{[0,1]}(x)$ and $f(x, y) = mathbb{1}_{[0,1]}(x)mathbb{1}_{[0,x]}(y)$.



I don't really know how the integration should look like. I would appreciate any tips or hints.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$





This question already has an answer here:




  • Probability that a stick randomly broken in two places can form a triangle

    2 answers




The problem



Let's consider the interval $[0, 1]$. We break this interval randomly in two parts. Then we choose the bigger part and again we break it randomly into two parts. At the end we have three parts of the interval.

Breaking points are distributed uniformly.

I am to find the probability of getting a triangle from these three pieces.



My attempt



First of all let's notice that a triangle can be build iff:





  1. $a+b>c$,


  2. $|a-b| < c$,


where $a, b, c$ are lengths of our triangle sights.



Let's denote the breaking points by $x$ and $y$.

Suppose $x > frac{1}{2}$. We do have three intervals after breaking our segment: $[0, y], [y, x], [x, 1]$.



The first condition of triangle's existence is trivially fulfilled. The second one implies:
$$y > x - {1}{2} text{ and } y < frac{1}{2}.$$
I calculated that:
$$f_{Y|X}(y|x) = frac{f(x, y)}{int limits_{infty}^{infty}f_X(x) mathbb{1}_{[0,x]}(y) mbox{d}y}.$$
Where $f(x) = mathbb{1}_{[0,1]}(x)$ and $f(x, y) = mathbb{1}_{[0,1]}(x)mathbb{1}_{[0,x]}(y)$.



I don't really know how the integration should look like. I would appreciate any tips or hints.





This question already has an answer here:




  • Probability that a stick randomly broken in two places can form a triangle

    2 answers








probability random-variables triangle






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 17 '18 at 18:59









HendrraHendrra

1,163516




1,163516




marked as duplicate by Andrei, Don Thousand, Michael Hoppe, Pierre-Guy Plamondon, amWhy Dec 17 '18 at 21:54


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.






marked as duplicate by Andrei, Don Thousand, Michael Hoppe, Pierre-Guy Plamondon, amWhy Dec 17 '18 at 21:54


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.










  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @M.Nestor while I have seen this question posed here before, and it definitely is a duplicate. The link you post is actually to a different formulation of the problem, where someone's simulation is giving a result other than the expected result.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug M
    Dec 17 '18 at 19:32










  • $begingroup$
    @DougM the answer of this problem is exactly twice of that in the linked question b/c we have been asked to break the longer piece.
    $endgroup$
    – achille hui
    Dec 17 '18 at 19:47














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @M.Nestor while I have seen this question posed here before, and it definitely is a duplicate. The link you post is actually to a different formulation of the problem, where someone's simulation is giving a result other than the expected result.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug M
    Dec 17 '18 at 19:32










  • $begingroup$
    @DougM the answer of this problem is exactly twice of that in the linked question b/c we have been asked to break the longer piece.
    $endgroup$
    – achille hui
    Dec 17 '18 at 19:47








1




1




$begingroup$
@M.Nestor while I have seen this question posed here before, and it definitely is a duplicate. The link you post is actually to a different formulation of the problem, where someone's simulation is giving a result other than the expected result.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Dec 17 '18 at 19:32




$begingroup$
@M.Nestor while I have seen this question posed here before, and it definitely is a duplicate. The link you post is actually to a different formulation of the problem, where someone's simulation is giving a result other than the expected result.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Dec 17 '18 at 19:32












$begingroup$
@DougM the answer of this problem is exactly twice of that in the linked question b/c we have been asked to break the longer piece.
$endgroup$
– achille hui
Dec 17 '18 at 19:47




$begingroup$
@DougM the answer of this problem is exactly twice of that in the linked question b/c we have been asked to break the longer piece.
$endgroup$
– achille hui
Dec 17 '18 at 19:47










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

Let $x$ and $1-x$ be the length of the two pieces after first split.



Relabel the two pieces if necessary, we can assume $x sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$ and
the longer piece has length $x$.



Let $xy,x(1-y)$ be the length of pieces after we split the longer piece.



Relabel the two new pieces if necessary, we can assume $y sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$.



We now have $3$ pieces of length $xy, x(1-y)$ and $1-x$. In order for them to form
a triangle, the conditions are




  • $xy + x(1-y) ge 1-x iff x ge 1-x$

  • $xy + 1 - x ge x(1-y)$

  • $x(1-y) + 1-x ge xy iff xy le frac12$


The first two conditions are trivially satisfied. In order to satisfy the third condition.
The point $(x,y)$ needs to fall into a shape bounded by two lines $x = frac12$, $y = frac12$ and hyperbola $xy = frac12$. The desired probability is $4$ times the area of this.



$$
4int_{frac12}^1 int_{frac12}^{frac{1}{2x}} dy dx =
2int_{frac12}^1 left( frac{1}{x} - 1 right) dx
= log(4)-1 approx 0.3862943611$$



As pointed out by M.Nestor in comment, a very similar question has been asked before.
However, our answer is different from there
($log 2 - frac12 approx 0.19314$) because we have been asked to break the longer piece after the first split. Since breaking the shorter piece
"almost never" give you a valid triangle, our answer is exactly twice of the accepted answer in above question.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Why can we assume that both $x, y sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$?
    $endgroup$
    – Hendrra
    Jan 3 at 16:05










  • $begingroup$
    Moreover how did you get that $y > frac{1}{2}$?
    $endgroup$
    – Hendrra
    Jan 3 at 16:32










  • $begingroup$
    This is what "Relabel the two pieces if necessary" refers to. Let's say after first split, the length of the pieces are $p$ and $1-p$. If $p ge frac12$, we call the piece with length $p$ piece $1$, the other piece piece $2$. If $p < frac12$, we call the piece with length $1-p$ piece $1$ instead. Under this naming convention, the length of piece $1$ is $x = max(p,1-p) in [ frac12, 1 ]$. For any $[a,b] subset [frac12,1]$, we have $$mathbb{P}(x in [a,b]) = mathbb{P}( p in [1-b,1-a] cap [a,b] ) = 2(b-a)$$ This is precisely what one need for $x sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$.
    $endgroup$
    – achille hui
    Jan 3 at 22:27










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you. I understand almost everything. Can you explain why $mathbb{P}( p in [1-b,1-a] cap [a,b] ) = 2(b-a)$?
    $endgroup$
    – Hendrra
    Jan 4 at 21:07






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Hendrra oops, there is a typo, should be $$mathbb{P}(x in [a,b]) = mathbb{P}(p in [1-b,1-a]color{red}{cup} [a,b])$$ Basically, $x = max(p,1-p)$, so either $x = p ge frac12 implies p in [a,b]$ or $x = 1-p implies p < frac12 implies p in [1-b,1-a]$.
    $endgroup$
    – achille hui
    Jan 4 at 22:42




















1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









1












$begingroup$

Let $x$ and $1-x$ be the length of the two pieces after first split.



Relabel the two pieces if necessary, we can assume $x sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$ and
the longer piece has length $x$.



Let $xy,x(1-y)$ be the length of pieces after we split the longer piece.



Relabel the two new pieces if necessary, we can assume $y sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$.



We now have $3$ pieces of length $xy, x(1-y)$ and $1-x$. In order for them to form
a triangle, the conditions are




  • $xy + x(1-y) ge 1-x iff x ge 1-x$

  • $xy + 1 - x ge x(1-y)$

  • $x(1-y) + 1-x ge xy iff xy le frac12$


The first two conditions are trivially satisfied. In order to satisfy the third condition.
The point $(x,y)$ needs to fall into a shape bounded by two lines $x = frac12$, $y = frac12$ and hyperbola $xy = frac12$. The desired probability is $4$ times the area of this.



$$
4int_{frac12}^1 int_{frac12}^{frac{1}{2x}} dy dx =
2int_{frac12}^1 left( frac{1}{x} - 1 right) dx
= log(4)-1 approx 0.3862943611$$



As pointed out by M.Nestor in comment, a very similar question has been asked before.
However, our answer is different from there
($log 2 - frac12 approx 0.19314$) because we have been asked to break the longer piece after the first split. Since breaking the shorter piece
"almost never" give you a valid triangle, our answer is exactly twice of the accepted answer in above question.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Why can we assume that both $x, y sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$?
    $endgroup$
    – Hendrra
    Jan 3 at 16:05










  • $begingroup$
    Moreover how did you get that $y > frac{1}{2}$?
    $endgroup$
    – Hendrra
    Jan 3 at 16:32










  • $begingroup$
    This is what "Relabel the two pieces if necessary" refers to. Let's say after first split, the length of the pieces are $p$ and $1-p$. If $p ge frac12$, we call the piece with length $p$ piece $1$, the other piece piece $2$. If $p < frac12$, we call the piece with length $1-p$ piece $1$ instead. Under this naming convention, the length of piece $1$ is $x = max(p,1-p) in [ frac12, 1 ]$. For any $[a,b] subset [frac12,1]$, we have $$mathbb{P}(x in [a,b]) = mathbb{P}( p in [1-b,1-a] cap [a,b] ) = 2(b-a)$$ This is precisely what one need for $x sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$.
    $endgroup$
    – achille hui
    Jan 3 at 22:27










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you. I understand almost everything. Can you explain why $mathbb{P}( p in [1-b,1-a] cap [a,b] ) = 2(b-a)$?
    $endgroup$
    – Hendrra
    Jan 4 at 21:07






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Hendrra oops, there is a typo, should be $$mathbb{P}(x in [a,b]) = mathbb{P}(p in [1-b,1-a]color{red}{cup} [a,b])$$ Basically, $x = max(p,1-p)$, so either $x = p ge frac12 implies p in [a,b]$ or $x = 1-p implies p < frac12 implies p in [1-b,1-a]$.
    $endgroup$
    – achille hui
    Jan 4 at 22:42


















1












$begingroup$

Let $x$ and $1-x$ be the length of the two pieces after first split.



Relabel the two pieces if necessary, we can assume $x sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$ and
the longer piece has length $x$.



Let $xy,x(1-y)$ be the length of pieces after we split the longer piece.



Relabel the two new pieces if necessary, we can assume $y sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$.



We now have $3$ pieces of length $xy, x(1-y)$ and $1-x$. In order for them to form
a triangle, the conditions are




  • $xy + x(1-y) ge 1-x iff x ge 1-x$

  • $xy + 1 - x ge x(1-y)$

  • $x(1-y) + 1-x ge xy iff xy le frac12$


The first two conditions are trivially satisfied. In order to satisfy the third condition.
The point $(x,y)$ needs to fall into a shape bounded by two lines $x = frac12$, $y = frac12$ and hyperbola $xy = frac12$. The desired probability is $4$ times the area of this.



$$
4int_{frac12}^1 int_{frac12}^{frac{1}{2x}} dy dx =
2int_{frac12}^1 left( frac{1}{x} - 1 right) dx
= log(4)-1 approx 0.3862943611$$



As pointed out by M.Nestor in comment, a very similar question has been asked before.
However, our answer is different from there
($log 2 - frac12 approx 0.19314$) because we have been asked to break the longer piece after the first split. Since breaking the shorter piece
"almost never" give you a valid triangle, our answer is exactly twice of the accepted answer in above question.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Why can we assume that both $x, y sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$?
    $endgroup$
    – Hendrra
    Jan 3 at 16:05










  • $begingroup$
    Moreover how did you get that $y > frac{1}{2}$?
    $endgroup$
    – Hendrra
    Jan 3 at 16:32










  • $begingroup$
    This is what "Relabel the two pieces if necessary" refers to. Let's say after first split, the length of the pieces are $p$ and $1-p$. If $p ge frac12$, we call the piece with length $p$ piece $1$, the other piece piece $2$. If $p < frac12$, we call the piece with length $1-p$ piece $1$ instead. Under this naming convention, the length of piece $1$ is $x = max(p,1-p) in [ frac12, 1 ]$. For any $[a,b] subset [frac12,1]$, we have $$mathbb{P}(x in [a,b]) = mathbb{P}( p in [1-b,1-a] cap [a,b] ) = 2(b-a)$$ This is precisely what one need for $x sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$.
    $endgroup$
    – achille hui
    Jan 3 at 22:27










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you. I understand almost everything. Can you explain why $mathbb{P}( p in [1-b,1-a] cap [a,b] ) = 2(b-a)$?
    $endgroup$
    – Hendrra
    Jan 4 at 21:07






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Hendrra oops, there is a typo, should be $$mathbb{P}(x in [a,b]) = mathbb{P}(p in [1-b,1-a]color{red}{cup} [a,b])$$ Basically, $x = max(p,1-p)$, so either $x = p ge frac12 implies p in [a,b]$ or $x = 1-p implies p < frac12 implies p in [1-b,1-a]$.
    $endgroup$
    – achille hui
    Jan 4 at 22:42
















1












1








1





$begingroup$

Let $x$ and $1-x$ be the length of the two pieces after first split.



Relabel the two pieces if necessary, we can assume $x sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$ and
the longer piece has length $x$.



Let $xy,x(1-y)$ be the length of pieces after we split the longer piece.



Relabel the two new pieces if necessary, we can assume $y sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$.



We now have $3$ pieces of length $xy, x(1-y)$ and $1-x$. In order for them to form
a triangle, the conditions are




  • $xy + x(1-y) ge 1-x iff x ge 1-x$

  • $xy + 1 - x ge x(1-y)$

  • $x(1-y) + 1-x ge xy iff xy le frac12$


The first two conditions are trivially satisfied. In order to satisfy the third condition.
The point $(x,y)$ needs to fall into a shape bounded by two lines $x = frac12$, $y = frac12$ and hyperbola $xy = frac12$. The desired probability is $4$ times the area of this.



$$
4int_{frac12}^1 int_{frac12}^{frac{1}{2x}} dy dx =
2int_{frac12}^1 left( frac{1}{x} - 1 right) dx
= log(4)-1 approx 0.3862943611$$



As pointed out by M.Nestor in comment, a very similar question has been asked before.
However, our answer is different from there
($log 2 - frac12 approx 0.19314$) because we have been asked to break the longer piece after the first split. Since breaking the shorter piece
"almost never" give you a valid triangle, our answer is exactly twice of the accepted answer in above question.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Let $x$ and $1-x$ be the length of the two pieces after first split.



Relabel the two pieces if necessary, we can assume $x sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$ and
the longer piece has length $x$.



Let $xy,x(1-y)$ be the length of pieces after we split the longer piece.



Relabel the two new pieces if necessary, we can assume $y sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$.



We now have $3$ pieces of length $xy, x(1-y)$ and $1-x$. In order for them to form
a triangle, the conditions are




  • $xy + x(1-y) ge 1-x iff x ge 1-x$

  • $xy + 1 - x ge x(1-y)$

  • $x(1-y) + 1-x ge xy iff xy le frac12$


The first two conditions are trivially satisfied. In order to satisfy the third condition.
The point $(x,y)$ needs to fall into a shape bounded by two lines $x = frac12$, $y = frac12$ and hyperbola $xy = frac12$. The desired probability is $4$ times the area of this.



$$
4int_{frac12}^1 int_{frac12}^{frac{1}{2x}} dy dx =
2int_{frac12}^1 left( frac{1}{x} - 1 right) dx
= log(4)-1 approx 0.3862943611$$



As pointed out by M.Nestor in comment, a very similar question has been asked before.
However, our answer is different from there
($log 2 - frac12 approx 0.19314$) because we have been asked to break the longer piece after the first split. Since breaking the shorter piece
"almost never" give you a valid triangle, our answer is exactly twice of the accepted answer in above question.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 17 '18 at 20:09

























answered Dec 17 '18 at 19:45









achille huiachille hui

95.7k5131258




95.7k5131258












  • $begingroup$
    Why can we assume that both $x, y sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$?
    $endgroup$
    – Hendrra
    Jan 3 at 16:05










  • $begingroup$
    Moreover how did you get that $y > frac{1}{2}$?
    $endgroup$
    – Hendrra
    Jan 3 at 16:32










  • $begingroup$
    This is what "Relabel the two pieces if necessary" refers to. Let's say after first split, the length of the pieces are $p$ and $1-p$. If $p ge frac12$, we call the piece with length $p$ piece $1$, the other piece piece $2$. If $p < frac12$, we call the piece with length $1-p$ piece $1$ instead. Under this naming convention, the length of piece $1$ is $x = max(p,1-p) in [ frac12, 1 ]$. For any $[a,b] subset [frac12,1]$, we have $$mathbb{P}(x in [a,b]) = mathbb{P}( p in [1-b,1-a] cap [a,b] ) = 2(b-a)$$ This is precisely what one need for $x sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$.
    $endgroup$
    – achille hui
    Jan 3 at 22:27










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you. I understand almost everything. Can you explain why $mathbb{P}( p in [1-b,1-a] cap [a,b] ) = 2(b-a)$?
    $endgroup$
    – Hendrra
    Jan 4 at 21:07






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Hendrra oops, there is a typo, should be $$mathbb{P}(x in [a,b]) = mathbb{P}(p in [1-b,1-a]color{red}{cup} [a,b])$$ Basically, $x = max(p,1-p)$, so either $x = p ge frac12 implies p in [a,b]$ or $x = 1-p implies p < frac12 implies p in [1-b,1-a]$.
    $endgroup$
    – achille hui
    Jan 4 at 22:42




















  • $begingroup$
    Why can we assume that both $x, y sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$?
    $endgroup$
    – Hendrra
    Jan 3 at 16:05










  • $begingroup$
    Moreover how did you get that $y > frac{1}{2}$?
    $endgroup$
    – Hendrra
    Jan 3 at 16:32










  • $begingroup$
    This is what "Relabel the two pieces if necessary" refers to. Let's say after first split, the length of the pieces are $p$ and $1-p$. If $p ge frac12$, we call the piece with length $p$ piece $1$, the other piece piece $2$. If $p < frac12$, we call the piece with length $1-p$ piece $1$ instead. Under this naming convention, the length of piece $1$ is $x = max(p,1-p) in [ frac12, 1 ]$. For any $[a,b] subset [frac12,1]$, we have $$mathbb{P}(x in [a,b]) = mathbb{P}( p in [1-b,1-a] cap [a,b] ) = 2(b-a)$$ This is precisely what one need for $x sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$.
    $endgroup$
    – achille hui
    Jan 3 at 22:27










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you. I understand almost everything. Can you explain why $mathbb{P}( p in [1-b,1-a] cap [a,b] ) = 2(b-a)$?
    $endgroup$
    – Hendrra
    Jan 4 at 21:07






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Hendrra oops, there is a typo, should be $$mathbb{P}(x in [a,b]) = mathbb{P}(p in [1-b,1-a]color{red}{cup} [a,b])$$ Basically, $x = max(p,1-p)$, so either $x = p ge frac12 implies p in [a,b]$ or $x = 1-p implies p < frac12 implies p in [1-b,1-a]$.
    $endgroup$
    – achille hui
    Jan 4 at 22:42


















$begingroup$
Why can we assume that both $x, y sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$?
$endgroup$
– Hendrra
Jan 3 at 16:05




$begingroup$
Why can we assume that both $x, y sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$?
$endgroup$
– Hendrra
Jan 3 at 16:05












$begingroup$
Moreover how did you get that $y > frac{1}{2}$?
$endgroup$
– Hendrra
Jan 3 at 16:32




$begingroup$
Moreover how did you get that $y > frac{1}{2}$?
$endgroup$
– Hendrra
Jan 3 at 16:32












$begingroup$
This is what "Relabel the two pieces if necessary" refers to. Let's say after first split, the length of the pieces are $p$ and $1-p$. If $p ge frac12$, we call the piece with length $p$ piece $1$, the other piece piece $2$. If $p < frac12$, we call the piece with length $1-p$ piece $1$ instead. Under this naming convention, the length of piece $1$ is $x = max(p,1-p) in [ frac12, 1 ]$. For any $[a,b] subset [frac12,1]$, we have $$mathbb{P}(x in [a,b]) = mathbb{P}( p in [1-b,1-a] cap [a,b] ) = 2(b-a)$$ This is precisely what one need for $x sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$.
$endgroup$
– achille hui
Jan 3 at 22:27




$begingroup$
This is what "Relabel the two pieces if necessary" refers to. Let's say after first split, the length of the pieces are $p$ and $1-p$. If $p ge frac12$, we call the piece with length $p$ piece $1$, the other piece piece $2$. If $p < frac12$, we call the piece with length $1-p$ piece $1$ instead. Under this naming convention, the length of piece $1$ is $x = max(p,1-p) in [ frac12, 1 ]$. For any $[a,b] subset [frac12,1]$, we have $$mathbb{P}(x in [a,b]) = mathbb{P}( p in [1-b,1-a] cap [a,b] ) = 2(b-a)$$ This is precisely what one need for $x sim mathcal{U}(frac12,1)$.
$endgroup$
– achille hui
Jan 3 at 22:27












$begingroup$
Thank you. I understand almost everything. Can you explain why $mathbb{P}( p in [1-b,1-a] cap [a,b] ) = 2(b-a)$?
$endgroup$
– Hendrra
Jan 4 at 21:07




$begingroup$
Thank you. I understand almost everything. Can you explain why $mathbb{P}( p in [1-b,1-a] cap [a,b] ) = 2(b-a)$?
$endgroup$
– Hendrra
Jan 4 at 21:07




1




1




$begingroup$
@Hendrra oops, there is a typo, should be $$mathbb{P}(x in [a,b]) = mathbb{P}(p in [1-b,1-a]color{red}{cup} [a,b])$$ Basically, $x = max(p,1-p)$, so either $x = p ge frac12 implies p in [a,b]$ or $x = 1-p implies p < frac12 implies p in [1-b,1-a]$.
$endgroup$
– achille hui
Jan 4 at 22:42






$begingroup$
@Hendrra oops, there is a typo, should be $$mathbb{P}(x in [a,b]) = mathbb{P}(p in [1-b,1-a]color{red}{cup} [a,b])$$ Basically, $x = max(p,1-p)$, so either $x = p ge frac12 implies p in [a,b]$ or $x = 1-p implies p < frac12 implies p in [1-b,1-a]$.
$endgroup$
– achille hui
Jan 4 at 22:42





Popular posts from this blog

Bressuire

Cabo Verde

Gyllenstierna