I am sorry I am being very descriptive here but I hope you could help me with the following problem (I try to program this in R):
Let's say we have array where rows are parties and columns are parties' issue positions (measured as distance from the median issue position across all parties). I want to model parties announcing an issue platform. This goes like this: start with the issue on which the distance from the median issue position is smallest and announce that platform with probability (1 minus issue distance from median....parties announce that issue that issue as their platform with probability = 1 if they are the median party on that issue). If rbinom(1,1, prob) ==1 they will announce that issue (i.e, the column indicator) as their platform. If rbinom(1,1, prob) == 0, they will move on to the issue on which the distance from the median issue position is second-to-smallest (and draw from a binomial distribution) And so forth until a platform is announced. All parties go through the same steps to find a issue platform for that run of the model, but parties differ on the issues on which they are closest to the median party.
Would you have advice on how to program such a set-up?
I built a toy model that can compute what you want. Assuming there are n parties and k issues, below I provide a code for computing the party choice for one party. It should be fairly straight to generalize the code for all parties. You just need to add a Loop. I left this as an exercise to you =):
n = 4 # example with n=4
k = 3 # k = 3 issues
party_position = matrix(runif(k*n),nrow=n, ncol=k) # matrix with party positions on each issue
med = apply(party_position,2 , median) # compute median of each column
gen.pos = function(party_position, median=med, k) {
if ( k ==1 ) { # case base, i.e., when all previous decisions were rbinom == 0, there is only one platafform left. Pick that one.
issue.announcing = which.max(abs(party_position[1,]-med))
return(issue.announcing)
}
else {
dif=abs(party_position[1,]-med) # difference between party position and median
value=min(dif) # value gets minor difference
pos=which.min(dif) # position in party_position matrix of value
decision = rbinom(1, 1, 1- value) # decision with probability 1 - difference of minimum value and median
if (decision < 1) { # if rbinom < 1, i.e, equals zero
k=k-1 # set new k, so recursive function can work
party_position[1,-pos] # it'll drop of matrix minimum value found before, so we can pick new minimum value
return (gen.pos(party.position, median=med, k)) } # call the function with new matrix
else { #i.e. if decision was equal 1, just pick pos as issue plataform
issue.announcing = pos
return (issue.announcing)
}
}
}
The functon "gen.pos" will find the party plataform for party one (row one). I guess you just need to apply a "for" to generate positions for all parties. Note that the function is recursive, which is, btw, the reason why I spent my time into this: I really like to write recursive functions!
ps.: Check my function. It seemed to work here and I think it's correct, but as some people say, 'trust, but check'.
ps.2: the function returns the position (i.e., the column) for party one. If you need the number, not the position, juts use,
position.final = gen.pos(Party_position, med, k)
plataform = party_position[1,position.final]
Related
I got a question related to probability theory and I tried to solve it by simulating it in R. However, I ran into a problem as the while loop does not seem to break.
The question is asking: How many people are needed such that there is at least a 70% chance that one of them is born on the last day of December?
Here is my code:
prob <- 0
people <- 1
while (prob <= 0.7) {
people <- people + 1 #start the iteration with 2 people in the room and increase 1 for every iteration
birthday <- sample(365, size = people, replace = TRUE)
prob <- length(which(birthday == 365)) / people
}
return(prob)
My guess is that it could never hit 70%, therefore the while loop never breaks, am I right? If so, did I interpret the question wrongly?
I did not want to post this on stats.stackexchange.com because I thought this is more related to code rather than math itself, but I will move it if necessary, thanks.
This is a case where an analytical solution based on probability is easier and more accurate than trying to simulate. I agree with Harshvardhan that your formulation is solving the wrong problem.
The probability of having at least one person in a pool of n have their birthday on a particular target date is 1-P{all n miss the target date}. This probability is at least 0.7 when P{all n miss the target date} < 0.3. The probability of each individual missing the target is assumed to be P{miss} = 1-1/365 (365 days per year, all birthdates equally likely). If the individual birthdays are independent, then P{all n miss the target date} = P{miss}^n.
I am not an R programmer, but the following Ruby should translate pretty easily:
# Use rationals to avoid cumulative float errors.
# Makes it slower but accurate.
P_MISS_TARGET = 1 - 1/365r
p_all_miss = P_MISS_TARGET
threshold = 3r / 10 # seeking P{all miss target} < 0.3
n = 1
while p_all_miss > threshold
p_all_miss *= P_MISS_TARGET
n += 1
end
puts "With #{n} people, the probability all miss is #{p_all_miss.to_f}"
which produces:
With 439 people, the probability all miss is 0.29987476838793214
Addendum
I got curious, since my answer differs from the accepted one, so I wrote a small simulation. Again, I think it's straightforward enough to understand even though it's not in R:
require 'quickstats' # Stats "gem" available from rubygems.org
def trial
n = 1
# Keep adding people to the count until one of them hits the target
n += 1 while rand(1..365) != 365
return n
end
def quantile(percentile = 0.7, number_of_trials = 1_000)
# Create an array containing results from specified number of trials.
# Defaults to 1000 trials
counts = Array.new(number_of_trials) { trial }
# Sort the array and determine the empirical target percentile.
# Defaults to 70th percentile
return counts.sort[(percentile * number_of_trials).to_i]
end
# Tally the statistics of 100 quantiles and report results,
# including margin of error, formatted to 3 decimal places.
stats = QuickStats.new
100.times { stats.new_obs(quantile) }
puts "#{"%.3f" % stats.avg}+/-#{"%.3f" % (1.96*stats.std_err)}"
Five runs produce outputs such as:
440.120+/-3.336
440.650+/-3.495
435.820+/-3.558
439.500+/-3.738
442.290+/-3.909
which is strongly consistent with the analytical result derived earlier and seems to differ significantly from other responder's answers.
Note that on my machine the simulation takes roughly 40 times longer than the analytical calculation, is more complex, and introduces uncertainty. To increase the precision you would need larger sample sizes, and thus longer run times. Given these considerations, I would reiterate my advice to go for the direct solution in this case.
Indeed, your probability will (almost) never reach 0.7, because you hardly will hit the point where exactly 1 person has got birthday = 365. When people gets larger, there will be more people having a birthday = 365, and the probability for exactly 1 person will decrease.
Furthermore, to calculate a probability for a given number of persons, you should draw many samples and then calculate the probability. Here is a way to achieve that:
N = 450 # max. number of peoples being tried
probs = array(numeric(), N) # empty array to store found probabilities
# try for all people numbers in range 1:N
for(people in 1:N){
# do 200 samples to calculate prop
samples = 200
successes = 0
for(i in 1:samples){
birthday <- sample(365, size = people, replace = TRUE)
total_last_day <- sum(birthday == 365)
if(total_last_day >= 1){
successes <- successes + 1
}
}
# store found prop in array
probs[people] = successes/samples
}
# output of those people numbers that achieved a probability of > 0.7
which(probs>0.7)
As this is a simulation, the result depends on the run. Increasing the sample rate would make the result more stable.
You are solving the wrong problem. The question is, "How many people are needed such that there is at least a 70% chance that one of them is born on the last day of December?". What you are finding now is "How many people are needed such that 70% have their birthdays on the last day of December?". The answer to the second question is close to zero. But the first one is much simpler.
Replace prob <- length(which(birthday == 365)) / people with check = any(birthday == 365) in your logic because at least one of them has to be born on Dec 31. Then, you will be able to find if that number of people will have at least one person born on Dec 31.
After that, you will have to rerun the simulation multiple times to generate empirical probability distribution (kind of Monte Carlo). Only then you can check for probability.
Simulation Code
people_count = function(i)
{
set.seed(i)
for (people in 1:10000)
{
birthday = sample(365, size = people, replace = TRUE)
check = any(birthday == 365)
if(check == TRUE)
{
pf = people
break
}
}
return(pf)
}
people_count() function returns the number of people required to have so that at least one of them was born on Dec 31. Then I rerun the simulation 10,000 times.
# Number of simulations
nsim = 10000
l = lapply(1:nsim, people_count) %>%
unlist()
Let's see the distribution of the number of people required.
To find actual probability, I'll use cumsum().
> cdf = cumsum(l/nsim)
> which(cdf>0.7)[1]
[1] 292
So, on average, you would need 292 people to have more than a 70% chance.
In addition to #pjs answer, I would like to provide one myself, written in R. I attempted to solve this question by simulation rather than an analytical approach, and I am sharing it in case it is helpful for someone else who also has the same problem. Its not that well written but the idea is there:
# create a function which will find if anyone is born on last day
last_day <- function(x){
birthdays <- sample(365, size = x, replace = TRUE) #randomly get everyone's birthdays
if(length(which(birthdays == 365)) >= 1) {
TRUE #find amount of people born on last day and return true if >1
} else {
FALSE
}
}
# find out how many people needed to get 70%
people <- 0 #set number of people to zero
prob <- 0 #set prob to zero
while (prob <= 0.7) { #loop does not stop until it hits 70%
people <- people + 1 #increase the number of people every iteration
prob <- mean(replicate(10000, last_day(people))) #run last_day 10000 times to find the mean of probability
}
print(no_of_people)
last_day() only return TRUE or FALSE. So I run last_day() 10000 times in the loop for every iteration to find out, out of 10000 times, how many times does it have one or more people born on the last day (This will give the probability). I then keep the loop running until the probability is 70% or more, then print the number of people.
The answer I get from running the loop once is 440 which is quite close to the answer provided by #pjs.
I had an application that required something similar to the problem described here.
I too need to generate a set of positive integer random variables {Xi} that add up to a given sum S, where each variable might have constraints such as mi<=Xi<=Mi.
This I know how to do, the problem is that in my case I also might have constraints between the random variables themselves, say Xi<=Fi(Xj) for some given Fi (also lets say Fi's inverse is known), Now, how should one generate the random variables "correctly"? I put correctly in quotes here because I'm not really sure what it would mean here except that I want the generated numbers to cover all possible cases with as uniform a probability as possible for each possible case.
Say we even look at a very simple case:
4 random variables X1,X2,X3,X4 that need to add up to 100 and comply with the constraint X1 <= 2*X2, what would be the "correct" way to generate them?
P.S. I know that this seems like it would be a better fit for math overflow but I found no solutions there either.
For 4 random variables X1,X2,X3,X4 that need to add up to 100 and comply with the constraint X1 <= 2*X2, one could use multinomial distribution
As soon as probability of the first number is low enough, your
condition would be almost always satisfied, if not - reject and repeat.
And multinomial distribution by design has the sum equal to 100.
Code, Windows 10 x64, Python 3.8
import numpy as np
def x1x2x3x4(rng):
while True:
v = rng.multinomial(100, [0.1, 1/2-0.1, 1/4, 1/4])
if v[0] <= 2*v[1]:
return v
return None
rng = np.random.default_rng()
print(x1x2x3x4(rng))
print(x1x2x3x4(rng))
print(x1x2x3x4(rng))
UPDATE
Lots of freedom in selecting probabilities. E.g., you could make other (##2, 3, 4) symmetric. Code
def x1x2x3x4(rng, pfirst = 0.1):
pother = (1.0 - pfirst)/3.0
while True:
v = rng.multinomial(100, [pfirst, pother, pother, pother])
if v[0] <= 2*v[1]:
return v
return None
UPDATE II
If you start rejecting combinations, then you artificially bump probabilities of one subset of events and lower probabilities of another set of events - and total sum is always 1. There is NO WAY to have uniform probabilities with conditions you want to meet. Code below runs with multinomial with equal probabilities and computes histograms and mean values. Mean supposed to be exactly 25 (=100/4), but as soon as you reject some samples, you lower mean of first value and increase mean of the second value. Difference is small, but UNAVOIDABLE. If it is ok with you, so be it. Code
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
def x1x2x3x4(rng, summa, pfirst = 0.1):
pother = (1.0 - pfirst)/3.0
while True:
v = rng.multinomial(summa, [pfirst, pother, pother, pother])
if v[0] <= 2*v[1]:
return v
return None
rng = np.random.default_rng()
s = 100
N = 5000000
# histograms
first = np.zeros(s+1)
secnd = np.zeros(s+1)
third = np.zeros(s+1)
forth = np.zeros(s+1)
mfirst = np.float64(0.0)
msecnd = np.float64(0.0)
mthird = np.float64(0.0)
mforth = np.float64(0.0)
for _ in range(0, N): # sampling with equal probabilities
v = x1x2x3x4(rng, s, 0.25)
q = v[0]
mfirst += np.float64(q)
first[q] += 1.0
q = v[1]
msecnd += np.float64(q)
secnd[q] += 1.0
q = v[2]
mthird += np.float64(q)
third[q] += 1.0
q = v[3]
mforth += np.float64(q)
forth[q] += 1.0
x = np.arange(0, s+1, dtype=np.int32)
fig, axs = plt.subplots(4)
axs[0].stem(x, first, markerfmt=' ')
axs[1].stem(x, secnd, markerfmt=' ')
axs[2].stem(x, third, markerfmt=' ')
axs[3].stem(x, forth, markerfmt=' ')
plt.show()
print((mfirst/N, msecnd/N, mthird/N, mforth/N))
prints
(24.9267492, 25.0858356, 24.9928602, 24.994555)
NB! As I said, first mean is lower and second is higher. Histograms are a little bit different as well
UPDATE III
Ok, Dirichlet, so be it. Lets compute mean values of your generator before and after the filter. Code
import numpy as np
def generate(n=10000):
uv = np.hstack([np.zeros([n, 1]),
np.sort(np.random.rand(n, 2), axis=1),
np.ones([n,1])])
return np.diff(uv, axis=1)
a = generate(1000000)
print("Original Dirichlet sample means")
print(a.shape)
print(np.mean((a[:, 0] * 100).astype(int)))
print(np.mean((a[:, 1] * 100).astype(int)))
print(np.mean((a[:, 2] * 100).astype(int)))
print("\nFiltered Dirichlet sample means")
q = (a[(a[:,0]<=2*a[:,1]) & (a[:,2]>0.35),:] * 100).astype(int)
print(q.shape)
print(np.mean(q[:, 0]))
print(np.mean(q[:, 1]))
print(np.mean(q[:, 2]))
I've got
Original Dirichlet sample means
(1000000, 3)
32.833758
32.791228
32.88054
Filtered Dirichlet sample means
(281428, 3)
13.912784086871243
28.36360987535
56.23109285501087
Do you see the difference? As soon as you apply any kind of filter, you alter the distribution. Nothing is uniform anymore
Ok, so I have this solution for my actual question where I generate 9000 triplets of 3 random variables by joining zeros to sorted random tuple arrays and finally ones and then taking their differences as suggested in the answer on SO I mentioned in my original question.
Then I simply filter out the ones that don't match my constraints and plot them.
S = 100
def generate(n=9000):
uv = np.hstack([np.zeros([n, 1]),
np.sort(np.random.rand(n, 2), axis=1),
np.ones([n,1])])
return np.diff(uv, axis=1)
a = generate()
def plotter(a):
fig = plt.figure(figsize=(10, 10), dpi=100)
ax = fig.add_subplot(projection='3d')
surf = ax.scatter(*zip(*a), marker='o', color=a / 100)
ax.view_init(elev=25., azim=75)
ax.set_xlabel('$A_1$', fontsize='large', fontweight='bold')
ax.set_ylabel('$A_2$', fontsize='large', fontweight='bold')
ax.set_zlabel('$A_3$', fontsize='large', fontweight='bold')
lim = (0, S);
ax.set_xlim3d(*lim);
ax.set_ylim3d(*lim);
ax.set_zlim3d(*lim)
plt.show()
b = a[(a[:, 0] <= 3.5 * a[:, 1] + 2 * a[:, 2]) &\
(a[:, 1] >= (a[:, 2])),:] * S
plotter(b.astype(int))
As you can see, the distribution is uniformly distributed over these arbitrary limits on the simplex but I'm still not sure if I could forego throwing away samples that don't adhere to the constraints (work the constraints somehow into the generation process? I'm almost certain now that it can't be done for general {Fi}). This could be useful in the general case if your constraints limit your sampled area to a very small subarea of the entire simplex (since resampling like this means that to sample from the constrained area a you need to sample from the simplex an order of 1/a times).
If someone has an answer to this last question I will be much obliged (will change the selected answer to his).
I have an answer to my question, under a general set of constraints what I do is:
Sample the constraints in order to evaluate s, the constrained area.
If s is big enough then generate random samples and throw out those that do not comply to the constraints as described in my previous answer.
Otherwise:
Enumerate the entire simplex.
Apply the constraints to filter out all tuples outside the constrained area.
List the resulting filtered tuples.
When asked to generate, I generate by choosing uniformly from this result list.
(note: this is worth my effort only because I'm asked to generate very often)
A combination of these two strategies should cover most cases.
Note: I also had to handle cases where S was a randomly generated parameter (m < S < M) in which case I simply treat it as another random variable constrained between m and M and I generate it together with the rest of the variables and handle it as I described earlier.
I am trying to do a maximization in R that I have done previously in Excel with the solver. The problem is that I don't know how to deal with it (i don't have a good level in R).
let's talk a bit about my data. I have 26 Swiss cantons and the Swiss government (which is the sum of the value of the 26 cantons) with their population and their "wealth". So I have 27 observatios by variable. I'm not sure that the following descriptions are useful but I put them anyway. From this, I calculate some variables with while loops. For each canton [i]:
resource potential = mean(wealth2011 [i],wealth2012 [i],wealth2013 [i])
population mean = mean(population2011 [i],population2012 [i],population2013 [i])
resource potential per capita = 1000*resource potential [i]/population [i]
resource index = 100*resource potential capita [i]/resource potential capita [swiss government]
Here a little example of the kind of loops I used:
RI=0
i = 1
while(i<28){
RI[i]=resource potential capita [i]/resource potential capita [27]*100
i = i+1
}
The resource index (RI) for the Swiss government (i = 27) is 100 because we divide the resource potential capita of the swiss government (when i = 27) by itself and multiply by 100. Hence, all cantons that have a RI>100 are rich cantons and other (IR<100) are poor cantons. Until here, there was no problem. I just explained how I built my dataset.
Now the problem that I face: I have to create the variable weighted difference (wd). It takes the value of:
0 if RI>100 (rich canton)
(100-RI[i])^(1+P)*Pop[i] if RI<100 (poor canton)
I create this variable like this: (sorry for the weakness of the code, I did my best).
wd=-1
i = 1
a = 0
c = 0
tot = 0
while(i<28){
if(i == 27) {
wd[i] = a
} else if (RI[i] < 100) {
wd[i] = (100-RI[i])^(1+P)*Pop[i]
c = wd[i]
a = a+c
} else {
wd[i]= 0
}
i = i+1
}
However, I don't now the value of "p". It is a value between 0 and 1. To find the value of p, I have to do a maximization using the following features:
RI_26 = 65.9, it is the minimum of RI in my data
RI_min = 100-((x*wd [27])/((1+p)*z*100))^(1/p), where x and z are fixed values (x = 8'677, z = 4'075'977'077) and wd [27] the sum of wd for each canton.
We have p in two equation: RI_min and wd. To solve it in Excel, I used the Excel solver with the following features:
p_dot = RI_26/RI_min* p ==> p_dot =[65.9/100-((x* wd [27])/((1+p)*z*100))^(1/p)]*p
RI_26 = RI_min ==>65.9 =100-((x*wd [27])/((1+p)*z*100))^(1/p)
In Excel, p is my variable cell (the only value allowed to change), p_dot is my objective to define and RI_26 = RI_min is my constraint.
So I would like to maximize p and I don't know how to do this in R. My main problem is the presence of p in RI_min and wd. We need to do an iteration to solve it but this is too far from my skills.
Is anyone able to help me with the information I provided?
you should look into the optim function.
Here I will try to give you a really simple explanation since you said you don't have a really good level in R.
Assuming I have a function f(x) that I want to maximize and therefore I want to find the parameter x that gives me the max value of f(x).
First thing to do will be to define the function, in R you can do this with:
myfunction<- function(x) {...}
Having defined the function I can optimize it with the command:
optim(par,myfunction)
where par is the vector of initial parameters of the function, and myfunction is the function that needs to be optimized. Bear in mind that optim performs minimization, however it will maximize if control$fnscale is negative. Another strategy will be to change the function (i.e. changing the sign) to suit the problem.
Hope that this helps,
Marco
From the description you provided, if I'm not mistaken, it looks like that everything you need to do it's just an equation.
In particular you have the following two expressions:
RI_min = 100-((x*y)/((1+p)*z*100))^(1/p)
and, since x,y,z are fixed, the only variable is p.
Moreover, having RI_26 = RI_min this yields to:
65.9 =100-((x*y)/((1+p)*z*100))^(1/p)
Plugging in the values of x,y and z you have provided, this yields to
p=0.526639915936052
I don't understand what exactly you are trying to maximize.
Forgive me if this has been asked before (I feel it must have, but could not find precisely what I am looking for).
Have can I draw one element of a vector of whole numbers (from 1 through, say, 10) using a probability function that specifies different chances of the elements. If I want equal propabilities I use runif() to get a number between 1 and 10:
ceiling(runif(1,1,10))
How do I similarly sample from e.g. the exponential distribution to get a number between 1 and 10 (such that 1 is much more likely than 10), or a logistic probability function (if I want a sigmoid increasing probability from 1 through 10).
The only "solution" I can come up with is first to draw e6 numbers from the say sigmoid distribution and then scale min and max to 1 and 10 - but this looks clumpsy.
UPDATE:
This awkward solution (and I dont feel it very "correct") would go like this
#Draw enough from a distribution, here exponential
x <- rexp(1e3)
#Scale probs to e.g. 1-10
scaler <- function(vector, min, max){
(((vector - min(vector)) * (max - min))/(max(vector) - min(vector))) + min
}
x_scale <- scaler(x,1,10)
#And sample once (and round it)
round(sample(x_scale,1))
Are there not better solutions around ?
I believe sample() is what you are looking for, as #HubertL mentioned in the comments. You can specify an increasing function (e.g. logit()) and pass the vector you want to sample from v as an input. You can then use the output of that function as a vector of probabilities p. See the code below.
logit <- function(x) {
return(exp(x)/(exp(x)+1))
}
v <- c(seq(1,10,1))
p <- logit(seq(1,10,1))
sample(v, 1, prob = p, replace = TRUE)
In some cases, a loop needs to run for a random number of iterations that ranges from min to max, inclusive. One working solution is to do something like this:
int numIterations = randomInteger(min, max);
for (int i = 0; i < numIterations; i++) {
/* ... fun and exciting things! ... */
}
A common mistake that many beginning programmers make is to do this:
for (int i = 0; i < randomInteger(min, max); i++) {
/* ... fun and exciting things! ... */
}
This recomputes the loop upper bound on each iteration.
I suspect that this does not give a uniform distribution of the number of times the loop will iterate that ranges from min to max, but I'm not sure exactly what distribution you do get when you do something like this. Does anyone know what the distribution of the number of loop iterations will be?
As a specific example: suppose that min = 0 and max = 2. Then there are the following possibilities:
When i = 0, the random value is 0. The loop runs 0 times.
When i = 0, the random value is nonzero. Then:
When i = 1, the random value is 0 or 1. Then the loop runs 1 time.
When i = 1, the random value is 2. Then the loop runs 2 times.
The probability of this first event is 1/3. The second event has probability 2/3, and within it, the first subcase has probability 2/3 and the second event has probability 1/3. Therefore, the average number of distributions is
0 × 1/3 + 1 × 2/3 × 2/3 + 2 × 2/3 × 1/3
= 0 + 4/9 + 4/9
= 8/9
Note that if the distribution were indeed uniform, we'd expect to get 1 loop iteration, but now we only get 8/9 on average. My question is whether it's possible to generalize this result to get a more exact value on the number of iterations.
Thanks!
Final edit (maybe!). I'm 95% sure that this isn't one of the standard distributions that are appropriate. I've put what the distribution is at the bottom of this post, as I think the code that gives the probabilities is more readable! A plot for the mean number of iterations against max is given below.
Interestingly, the number of iterations tails off as you increase max. Would be interesting if someone else could confirm this with their code.
If I were to start modelling this, I would start with the geometric distribution, and try to modify that. Essentially we're looking at a discrete, bounded distribution. So we have zero or more "failures" (not meeting the stopping condition), followed by one "success". The catch here, compared to the geometric or Poisson, is that the probability of success changes (also, like the Poisson, the geometric distribution is unbounded, but I think structurally the geometric is a good base). Assuming min=0, the basic mathematical form for P(X=k), 0 <= k <= max, where k is the number of iterations the loop runs, is, like the geometric distribution, the product of k failure terms and 1 success term, corresponding to k "false"s on the loop condition and 1 "true". (Note that this holds even to calculate the last probability, as the chance of stopping is then 1, which obviously makes no difference to a product).
Following on from this, an attempt to implement this in code, in R, looks like this:
fx = function(k,maximum)
{
n=maximum+1;
failure = factorial(n-1)/factorial(n-1-k) / n^k;
success = (k+1) / n;
failure * success
}
This assumes min=0, but generalizing to arbitrary mins isn't difficult (see my comment on the OP). To explain the code. First, as shown by the OP, the probabilities all have (min+1) as a denominator, so we calculate the denominator, n. Next, we calculate the product of the failure terms. Here factorial(n-1)/factorial(n-1-k) means, for example, for min=2, n=3 and k=2: 2*1. And it generalises to give you (n-1)(n-2)... for the total probability of failure. The probability of success increases as you get further into the loop, until finally, when k=maximum, it is 1.
Plotting this analytic formula gives the same results as the OP, and the same shape as the simulation plotted by John Kugelman.
Incidentally the R code to do this is as follows
plot_probability_mass_function = function(maximum)
{
x=0:maximum;
barplot(fx(x,max(x)), names.arg=x, main=paste("max",maximum), ylab="P(X=x)");
}
par(mfrow=c(3,1))
plot_probability_mass_function(2)
plot_probability_mass_function(10)
plot_probability_mass_function(100)
Mathematically, the distribution is, if I've got my maths right, given by:
which simplifies to
(thanks a bunch to http://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php)
The latter is given by the R function
function(x,m) { factorial(m)*(x+1)/(factorial(m-x)*(m+1)^(x+1)) }
Plotting the mean number of iterations is done like this in R
meanf = function(minimum)
{
x = 0:minimum
probs = f(x,minimum)
x %*% probs
}
meanf = function(maximum)
{
x = 0:maximum
probs = f(x,maximum)
x %*% probs
}
par(mfrow=c(2,1))
max_range = 1:10
plot(sapply(max_range, meanf) ~ max_range, ylab="Mean number of iterations", xlab="max")
max_range = 1:100
plot(sapply(max_range, meanf) ~ max_range, ylab="Mean number of iterations", xlab="max")
Here are some concrete results I plotted with matplotlib. The X axis is the value i reached. The Y axis is the number of times that value was reached.
The distribution is clearly not uniform. I don't know what distribution it is offhand; my statistics knowledge is quite rusty.
1. min = 10, max = 20, iterations = 100,000
2. min = 100, max = 200, iterations = 100,000
I believe that it would still, given a sufficient amount of executions, conform to the distribution of the randomInteger function.
But this is probably a question better suited to be asked on MATHEMATICS.
I don’t know the math behind it, but I know how to compute it! In Haskell:
import Numeric.Probability.Distribution
iterations min max = iteration 0
where
iteration i = do
x <- uniform [min..max]
if i < x
then iteration (i + 1)
else return i
Now expected (iterations 0 2) gives you the expected value of ~0.89. Maybe someone with the requisite math knowledge can explain what I’m actually doing here. Because you start at 0, the loop will always run at least min times.