Top
Best
New

Posted by quibono 4 days ago

Dark Alley Mathematics(blog.szczepan.org)
82 points | 20 comments
dooglius 6 hours ago|
EDIT: ok this was nagging at me for a while as something being off, I think this is actually wrong (in some way that must cancel out to accidentally get the right answer) because I need to multiply by 2 pi c to consider all rotations of centers around (0,0) at a given radius, but then my integral no longer works. Ah well, that's what I get for trying to method act and solve quickly, I guess the hooligan stabs me. I think at least this approach done properly could save some dimensions out of the Jacobian we need to calculate. Original post below:

Much more elegant: consider every circle that fits inside the unit circle, and we will work backward to find combinations of points. We only need consider centers on the x axis by symmetry, so these are parameterized by circle center at (0,c) and radius r with 0<c<1 and 0<r<1-c. Each circle contributes (2 pi r)^3 volume of triples of points, and this double integral easily works out to 2 pi^3/5 which is the answer (after dividing by the volume of point triples in the unit circle, pi^3)

wedog6 1 hour ago||
I think it's fairly straightforward to adapt your method. Given circle center c you just need to multiply by 2 pi c to get all the circles.

    int 0..1 2 pi c int 0..(1-c) (2 pi r)^3 dr dc / pi^3
    int 0..1 2 pi c int 0..(1-c) (2 r)^3 dr dc 
    int 0..1 2 pi c 2 (1-c)^4 dc
    -4 pi int 0..1 (1-g) g^4 dg
    4 pi (1/6 - 1/5)
    4 pi / 30
    2 pi/ 15
Genuinely not sure if this is wrong or if TFA is.
wedog6 56 minutes ago||
This result is out from the article by a factor of pi/3. This is the multiplicative difference between his inner integral with all the sins 24pi^2 and the GP's observation that 3 points on the chosen circle have density (2 pi r)^3 = 8pi^3 r^3.

(The article had already covered the r^3 in another part of the calculation.)

I'm trying to figure out an intuitive explanation as to why the work with the inner Jacobian is needed or an argument as to why it isn't.

Anyone want to simulate this accurately enough to distinguish between 40% and 41.9% probability? 5000 samples should be more than enough.

clutter55561 1 hour ago|||
Damn! I read your answer before bed and actually had trouble sleeping trying to understand it!

Thanks for editing your answer though. The thug got you in the end, but you saved me in the process.

ccvannorman 5 hours ago||
took me a few reads but this is indeed correct (lol)
fosco 5 hours ago||
The intro strongly reminded me of https://existentialcomics.com/comic/604

Really enjoyed this keep writing!

cyberax 4 hours ago|
Or maybe XKCD: https://xkcd.com/123/
layman51 7 hours ago||
When I first read the title, I thought it was gonna be about a book similar to one I heard about called “Street Fighting Mathematics” and it would be about like heuristics, estimation, etc. but this one seems to be about a specific problem.
del_operator 2 hours ago|
Aye
it4rb 4 hours ago||
We were told a (kind of) similar story in high school: https://medium.com/intuition/explain-this-or-i-will-shoot-yo...
tzs 4 hours ago||
I've got an idea for a simpler approach, but I've forgotten too much math to be able to actually try it.

The idea is to consider the set A of all circles that intersect the unit circle.

If you pick 3 random points inside the unit circle the probability that circle c ∈ A is the circle determined by those points should be proportional the length of the intersection of c's circumference with the unit circle.

The constant of proportionality should be such that the integral over all the circles is 1.

Then consider the set of all circles that are contained entirely in the unit circle. Integrate their circumferences times the aforementioned constant over all of these contained circles.

The ratio of these two integrals should I think be the desired probability.

bmacho 54 minutes ago|
I like this reasoning. Define a probability distribution on all circles of (x,y,r>=0) based on how likely a given circle is. Then we can just sum the good circles and all the circles.

And the probability distribution is simple: a given (x,y,r) is as likely as its circumference in the unit circle.

Reasoning: Let C:(x,y,r) a given circle. We want to know how likely is it that the circle on 3 random points are close to it, closer than a given value d. (A d wide ball or cube around C in (x,y,r) space. Different shapes lead to diffferent constants but same for every circle.) The set of good 3 points is more or less the same as the set of 3 points from the point set C(d): make C's circumference d thick, and pick the 3 points from this set. Now not any 3 points will suffice, but we can hope that the error goes to 0 as d goes to 0 and there is no systematic error.

Then we just have to integrate.

ChatGPT got me the result 2/3, so it's incorrect. I guess the circumference is not the right distribution.

elcapitan 3 hours ago||
I would calculate that the probability of a mathematician doing anything practical like operating a gun is even lower than the probability that I could solve the riddle (even with pen, paper, wikipedia and a liter of coffee on a good day), and choose to sprint off.
del_operator 2 hours ago|
Galois pistols loaded like hold my coffee
del_operator 2 hours ago||
Ah, 24, reminds me of ole days the lattice of those math alleys had a monstrous moonshine leeching into reality stranger than we’d care to code…
mehulashah 5 hours ago||
So, I’m left wondering why he did it the hard way.
fancyswimtime 5 hours ago||
I'd prefer a world like this; higher levels of whimsy accompanied with greater danger
jb1991 2 hours ago|
It’s funny because it’s true.