Site Searching Statistics Questions

[lch]

Yeah, my bad about the zero/one/two/three/four being equally possible. That was simplifying it too much, although I wouldn't want to do this in a full detail analysis which would include at which level you searched for the sites already, what terrain we have, etc. - this can get overly complicated.

What's only important: How many sites there are (a random variable), how many sites we found already and how much we searched already / how many search possibilities are left.

[VedalkenBear]

May I ask how you found that new distribution, Evilhomer? I think I see where you're going, but I'm missing that part. (And I am mildly affronted at the fact that you call this 'math geeky'. This is what I'll be doing for a living soon.)

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

I beat a hasty retreat before the math. I yield the field rather than suffer an ignominious defeat. I'll be watching from the sidelines, though.

[VedalkenBear]

LP: Aw, that doesn't help. I need people to catch me on stuff.

[lch]

Well, I don't have a problem of hearing that what I'm writing is complete rubbish so let's see what people say about this formula to determine the possibility to find a new site with a search, where SITES is the variable how many sites there are in the province, sites is how many we found already and searches is how many remote site searches have been done:

[Evilhomer]

And I am mildly affronted at the fact that you call this 'math geeky'. This is what I'll be doing for a living soon

Pretty much same here. But for me geeky is not equall to bad .

May I ask how you found that new distribution, Evilhomer?

0 - 0.000 trivial, we know we have atleast 1 site

1 - 0.216 we have 3 remaining "maybes", chance of having all as negatives are (6/10)*(6/10)*(6/10).

2 - 0.432 Chance of having exactly one additional site 3*(4/10)*(6/10)*(6/10)

and so forth....


Edit: I might have very well have misunderstood how sites are distributed to be honest....

As I understand it 4 checks are made with some percentage chance and for each "positive" a site is added, if i am wrong about this much does fall (though I am still pretty sure the binomical distribution changes if 1 earth site is given or not)

[VedalkenBear]

Ah, so it's binomial. I'm trying to figure out how to write it in binomial form. Is that just the binomial of 3s, shifted once? Seems like it.

Well, let me recalculate everything and see if we can get some terrain-specific issues.

[thejeff]

So what's the generic equation?

I can't quite get there. Even assuming equal chances and that paths are fully searched or not at all.

Having found one or more sites, just shifts the P(1+sites) over in the equation. From:
P(1)*1/8 + P(2)*15/64 + ...
to:
P(2)*1/8 +P(3)*15/64 + ...
for 1 known site.

Having searched a path increases the P(1+sites)?
From:
1/8, (1/8*7/8)+(7/8*1/8)+(1/8*1/8)
To:
1/7, (1/7*6/7)+(6/7*1/7)+(1/7*1/7)
for searching one path?

[Tequilich]

this hurts my brain

[VedalkenBear]

I'm not sure about generic equations. I can generally apply the distributions, but as you can see I prefer to generate probabilities 'from first principles' rather than rely on formulae. And even then, as EvilHomer shows, I sometimes get it wrong.