Page 1 of 1

Problem 389

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 10:40 am
by psujono
Problem 389 (View Problem)
What is meant by "Find the variance of I"?

Re: Problem 389

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:42 am
by TripleM

Re: Problem 389

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:50 am
by psujono
So that would be the square of the standard deviation?

Re: Problem 389

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 3:41 pm
by mdean
I was wondering what the code was with those letters for a minute before I figured it out:

Tetrahedron
Cube
Octahedron
Dodecahedron
Icosahedron

Ah well, probability is one of my weak points, but I may just have to attempt this problem anyway. Hoping I can complete it and maybe learn something from the other solutions.

Re: Problem 389

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:38 am
by thundre
mdean wrote:Tetrahedron
Cube
Octahedron
Dodecahedron
Icosahedron
The Platonic solids. I didn't even notice!

You can make fair dice (all faces congruent and symmetric) with any even number of sides, but the Platonic solids are the only ones where the faces are all regular polygons.

Re: Problem 389

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:29 am
by richard
I feel like I am solving this correctly but my answer is not accepted so obviously I've done something wrong. I've spent a lot of time looking for a mistake in my implementation but I'm not having any luck. Can someone post the variance of O (the results of the 8-sided dice) as an example that I can check against?

If that's too much of a clue maybe someone can give the variance for some other scenario involving dice with different numbers of sides from the actual problem (but involving at least 3 different types of dice) For example, one 5-sided = A then A 7-sided = B then B 9-sided = C, give the variance of C).

Re: Problem 389

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:22 am
by Marcus_Andrews
The answer to your 5-7-9 example: 1180.0

Re: Problem 389

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:19 pm
by richard
Thanks Marcus, I was able to track my bug down given the sample solution. I had calculated the variance across every unique roll sequence instead of based on the actual probabilities of the sequences.

Re: Problem 389

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:17 pm
by Marcus_Andrews
For future reference: I hope this is not too much of a spoiler, but a way to sanity-check your results manually if you are having trouble is to make a brute-force program that simulates dice rolls and calculates values for the variable I over and over again. That way you can calculate the variance on the fly to help cross-check your main program.

Re: Problem 389

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:40 pm
by hk
Marcus Stuhr wrote:For future reference: I hope this is not too much of a spoiler
I certainly isn't a spoiler.
It cannot be said often enough:
If you have an idea how to bruteforce for lower limits, or simpler cases or less accurate: just make that bruteforcer and check the results of more advanced programs with that.

It's just a way of solving your problems that should become a second nature.
I also use it when designing problems and when checking other's proposals.

Re: Problem 389

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:21 pm
by haphaeu
Hi there,
sorry, this is sort of a silly question but I just want to make sure I'm getting it right...
Since this problem involves a floating point, the answer should be given with the dot and the following 4 places? Like xyz.1234 ?
Or should I just ignore the dot and enter, say, xyz1234?
Thanks!

Re: Problem 389

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:45 pm
by hk
Like xyz.1234.

Re: Problem 389

Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:45 pm
by haphaeu
thundre wrote:
mdean wrote:Tetrahedron
Cube
Octahedron
Dodecahedron
Icosahedron
The Platonic solids. I didn't even notice!

You can make fair dice (all faces congruent and symmetric) with any even number of sides, but the Platonic solids are the only ones where the faces are all regular polygons.
wouldn't it make more sense using Hexahedron? :)

Re: Problem 389

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 pm
by thundre
haphaeu wrote:
thundre wrote:You can make fair dice (all faces congruent and symmetric) with any even number of sides, but the Platonic solids are the only ones where the faces are all regular polygons.
wouldn't it make more sense using Hexahedron? :)
Good point! A Hexahedron isn't Platonic because the vertexes don't all join the same number of sides. But all the faces are regular (provided all the sides are the same length).

How many other solids have regular congruent faces but aren't Platonic?

Re: Problem 389

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:18 pm
by hk
How about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_solid ?
There it says that a cube=a hexahedron=a six sided Platonic solid.

Please note that the problem statement doesn't use the terms -hedron or cube.

Re: Problem 389

Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 5:45 pm
by thundre
hk wrote:How about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_solid ?
There it says that a cube=a hexahedron=a six sided Platonic solid.

Please note that the problem statement doesn't use the terms -hedron or cube.
Oops! I thought it meant two tetrahedrons joined at the face. My bad.

Re: Problem 389

Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:11 am
by square1001
What numbers are written in each dice? I don't know even 1-indexed or 0-indexed.
Please tell me.

Re: Problem 389

Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:40 am
by Animus
The dice are 1-indexed, e.g. the numbers on the 4 sided die run from 1 to 4.

Re: Problem 389

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2026 1:28 am
by Junglemath
Animus wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:40 am The dice are 1-indexed, e.g. the numbers on the 4 sided die run from 1 to 4.
I had the same question as the person you replied to. The question does not specify the numbers on the dice, but only how many faces they have. I don't think it should be assumed that the numbers on the faces go from 1 to $n$. Can you add this condition explicitly to the problem statement?