Taking seats on a plane (Revisited)












0












$begingroup$


Most of you would be familiar with the plane seating problem. See this if not



I was trying to solve a similar problem. What is the probability that the $i^{th}$ chair is not occupied, after $k$ people are seated? ($k<i)$



I will use the notation $P(i,k)$ for denoting the probability.



I tried to write a recursive relation and came up with this:
$$ P(i,k) = P(i,k|i,k-1)*P(i,k-1)$$



Now for writing P(i,k|i,k-1) which encapsulates one trial where the $k^{th}$ person comes and picks a seat, I considered two cases naturally: If chair $k$ was picked earlier and if it was not.



If chair $k$ was picked earlier, then probability that chair $i$ is not picked is $frac{n-k}{n-k+1}$. This is because there are $n-k+1$ remaining chairs after $k-1$ people are seated.



If chair $k$ was not picked earlier, then probability that chair $i$ is not picked is 1, as the person will pick the assigned chair.



So summing it up
$$ P(i,k | i,k-1) = P(k,k-1)*1 + (1-P(k,k-1))frac{n-k}{n-k+1} $$



So the final recursion becomes
$$ P(i,k) = P(i,k-1)(P(k,k-1)*1 + (1-P(k,k-1))frac{n-k}{n-k+1})$$



Now I use some intuitive reasoning to claim that $P(m,k) = P(n,k)$ for all $m,n$ where $m,n > k$. The logic is that for all the $k$ people coming, seats $m$ and $n$ are symmetric. They are part of a random pool of other seats from which they choose from if their seat is occupied. They only have a preference to their seat. So the probability that 3rd seat is unoccupied after 2 people are seated is the same as the probability for the 4th seat. So using this fact the recursion becomes linear in space to be :
$$ P(i,k) = P(i,k-1)*(P(i,k-1)+(1-P(i,k-1))frac{n-k}{n-k+1}) $$



However the answer comes out to be wrong. I checked for the case (100,99) (Probability that 100 is unoccupied after 99 are seated) which should be equal to 0.5. Can someone find the flaw (or flaws) in the argument above?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    what did you get for (100,99)?
    $endgroup$
    – Zachary Hunter
    Jan 2 at 6:14










  • $begingroup$
    0.64. I used (100,1) to be 98/99.
    $endgroup$
    – cobra121
    Jan 3 at 16:32
















0












$begingroup$


Most of you would be familiar with the plane seating problem. See this if not



I was trying to solve a similar problem. What is the probability that the $i^{th}$ chair is not occupied, after $k$ people are seated? ($k<i)$



I will use the notation $P(i,k)$ for denoting the probability.



I tried to write a recursive relation and came up with this:
$$ P(i,k) = P(i,k|i,k-1)*P(i,k-1)$$



Now for writing P(i,k|i,k-1) which encapsulates one trial where the $k^{th}$ person comes and picks a seat, I considered two cases naturally: If chair $k$ was picked earlier and if it was not.



If chair $k$ was picked earlier, then probability that chair $i$ is not picked is $frac{n-k}{n-k+1}$. This is because there are $n-k+1$ remaining chairs after $k-1$ people are seated.



If chair $k$ was not picked earlier, then probability that chair $i$ is not picked is 1, as the person will pick the assigned chair.



So summing it up
$$ P(i,k | i,k-1) = P(k,k-1)*1 + (1-P(k,k-1))frac{n-k}{n-k+1} $$



So the final recursion becomes
$$ P(i,k) = P(i,k-1)(P(k,k-1)*1 + (1-P(k,k-1))frac{n-k}{n-k+1})$$



Now I use some intuitive reasoning to claim that $P(m,k) = P(n,k)$ for all $m,n$ where $m,n > k$. The logic is that for all the $k$ people coming, seats $m$ and $n$ are symmetric. They are part of a random pool of other seats from which they choose from if their seat is occupied. They only have a preference to their seat. So the probability that 3rd seat is unoccupied after 2 people are seated is the same as the probability for the 4th seat. So using this fact the recursion becomes linear in space to be :
$$ P(i,k) = P(i,k-1)*(P(i,k-1)+(1-P(i,k-1))frac{n-k}{n-k+1}) $$



However the answer comes out to be wrong. I checked for the case (100,99) (Probability that 100 is unoccupied after 99 are seated) which should be equal to 0.5. Can someone find the flaw (or flaws) in the argument above?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    what did you get for (100,99)?
    $endgroup$
    – Zachary Hunter
    Jan 2 at 6:14










  • $begingroup$
    0.64. I used (100,1) to be 98/99.
    $endgroup$
    – cobra121
    Jan 3 at 16:32














0












0








0





$begingroup$


Most of you would be familiar with the plane seating problem. See this if not



I was trying to solve a similar problem. What is the probability that the $i^{th}$ chair is not occupied, after $k$ people are seated? ($k<i)$



I will use the notation $P(i,k)$ for denoting the probability.



I tried to write a recursive relation and came up with this:
$$ P(i,k) = P(i,k|i,k-1)*P(i,k-1)$$



Now for writing P(i,k|i,k-1) which encapsulates one trial where the $k^{th}$ person comes and picks a seat, I considered two cases naturally: If chair $k$ was picked earlier and if it was not.



If chair $k$ was picked earlier, then probability that chair $i$ is not picked is $frac{n-k}{n-k+1}$. This is because there are $n-k+1$ remaining chairs after $k-1$ people are seated.



If chair $k$ was not picked earlier, then probability that chair $i$ is not picked is 1, as the person will pick the assigned chair.



So summing it up
$$ P(i,k | i,k-1) = P(k,k-1)*1 + (1-P(k,k-1))frac{n-k}{n-k+1} $$



So the final recursion becomes
$$ P(i,k) = P(i,k-1)(P(k,k-1)*1 + (1-P(k,k-1))frac{n-k}{n-k+1})$$



Now I use some intuitive reasoning to claim that $P(m,k) = P(n,k)$ for all $m,n$ where $m,n > k$. The logic is that for all the $k$ people coming, seats $m$ and $n$ are symmetric. They are part of a random pool of other seats from which they choose from if their seat is occupied. They only have a preference to their seat. So the probability that 3rd seat is unoccupied after 2 people are seated is the same as the probability for the 4th seat. So using this fact the recursion becomes linear in space to be :
$$ P(i,k) = P(i,k-1)*(P(i,k-1)+(1-P(i,k-1))frac{n-k}{n-k+1}) $$



However the answer comes out to be wrong. I checked for the case (100,99) (Probability that 100 is unoccupied after 99 are seated) which should be equal to 0.5. Can someone find the flaw (or flaws) in the argument above?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




Most of you would be familiar with the plane seating problem. See this if not



I was trying to solve a similar problem. What is the probability that the $i^{th}$ chair is not occupied, after $k$ people are seated? ($k<i)$



I will use the notation $P(i,k)$ for denoting the probability.



I tried to write a recursive relation and came up with this:
$$ P(i,k) = P(i,k|i,k-1)*P(i,k-1)$$



Now for writing P(i,k|i,k-1) which encapsulates one trial where the $k^{th}$ person comes and picks a seat, I considered two cases naturally: If chair $k$ was picked earlier and if it was not.



If chair $k$ was picked earlier, then probability that chair $i$ is not picked is $frac{n-k}{n-k+1}$. This is because there are $n-k+1$ remaining chairs after $k-1$ people are seated.



If chair $k$ was not picked earlier, then probability that chair $i$ is not picked is 1, as the person will pick the assigned chair.



So summing it up
$$ P(i,k | i,k-1) = P(k,k-1)*1 + (1-P(k,k-1))frac{n-k}{n-k+1} $$



So the final recursion becomes
$$ P(i,k) = P(i,k-1)(P(k,k-1)*1 + (1-P(k,k-1))frac{n-k}{n-k+1})$$



Now I use some intuitive reasoning to claim that $P(m,k) = P(n,k)$ for all $m,n$ where $m,n > k$. The logic is that for all the $k$ people coming, seats $m$ and $n$ are symmetric. They are part of a random pool of other seats from which they choose from if their seat is occupied. They only have a preference to their seat. So the probability that 3rd seat is unoccupied after 2 people are seated is the same as the probability for the 4th seat. So using this fact the recursion becomes linear in space to be :
$$ P(i,k) = P(i,k-1)*(P(i,k-1)+(1-P(i,k-1))frac{n-k}{n-k+1}) $$



However the answer comes out to be wrong. I checked for the case (100,99) (Probability that 100 is unoccupied after 99 are seated) which should be equal to 0.5. Can someone find the flaw (or flaws) in the argument above?







probability-theory discrete-mathematics recursion






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jan 1 at 12:34









cobra121cobra121

112




112












  • $begingroup$
    what did you get for (100,99)?
    $endgroup$
    – Zachary Hunter
    Jan 2 at 6:14










  • $begingroup$
    0.64. I used (100,1) to be 98/99.
    $endgroup$
    – cobra121
    Jan 3 at 16:32


















  • $begingroup$
    what did you get for (100,99)?
    $endgroup$
    – Zachary Hunter
    Jan 2 at 6:14










  • $begingroup$
    0.64. I used (100,1) to be 98/99.
    $endgroup$
    – cobra121
    Jan 3 at 16:32
















$begingroup$
what did you get for (100,99)?
$endgroup$
– Zachary Hunter
Jan 2 at 6:14




$begingroup$
what did you get for (100,99)?
$endgroup$
– Zachary Hunter
Jan 2 at 6:14












$begingroup$
0.64. I used (100,1) to be 98/99.
$endgroup$
– cobra121
Jan 3 at 16:32




$begingroup$
0.64. I used (100,1) to be 98/99.
$endgroup$
– cobra121
Jan 3 at 16:32










0






active

oldest

votes











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3058445%2ftaking-seats-on-a-plane-revisited%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























0






active

oldest

votes








0






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes
















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3058445%2ftaking-seats-on-a-plane-revisited%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

android studio warns about leanback feature tag usage required on manifest while using Unity exported app?

SQL update select statement

'app-layout' is not a known element: how to share Component with different Modules