Maths people, help!
In "Scarne on Cards", John Scarne discusses the odds for a game. He says this:
"The chances are 12220 to 9880 in their favour. [These numbers are definitely correct -- sil] That is, the percentage in their favour is 10-1/123."
Where's he getting that percentage from? How's he doing the calculation? I can't end up at that number, so I must be doing something wrong...
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from sil@mastodon.social
Ok, our conclusion to this little puzzle is “Scarne did the calculation wrong”. The number is 2340/22100, which is an edge of about 10.58%, not “10-1/123” (which is about 10.081%).
This being an error is bolstered by further research: in his later Scarne’s Complete Guide to Gambling, he relates the same game (with a different story about it), lays out the same calculation, and comes up with an answer of 10 1/17% which isn’t right either!
Still, be tolerant: life is hard pre-calculators.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from sil@mastodon.social
it's not all that hard, though. Admittedly he's doing this in the context of writing a big long book, but didn't they have editors in the 50s? I -- no aficionado of long division -- just spent all of five minutes doing the calculation on paper and there it is, ~10.58%.
(I don't even know how you do this division to end up with a fraction rather than a decimal. Someone who was doing maths by hand in the fifties (and presumably learned to do so in the 1910s) will have to tell me (by ouija board).)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from sil@mastodon.social
@sil TFW your Gell-Mann Amnesia is flaring up again.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from slightlyoff@toot.cafe
@slightlyoff what, me mistakenly trusting a gambling expert to get the maths right, or you mistakenly trusting me to get the long division right? :-)
the first two minutes were spent trying to divide 117 into 1105 instead of the other way around and being baffled as to why the answer began with a 9 when I knew in advance it ought to begin in a 1. Long time since I did any maths on paper :)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from sil@mastodon.social
@sil I haven’t thought about doing manual division in 30 years, I doubt I could anymore without a refresher.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from daveshea@cosocial.ca
@daveshea the fickle hand of inaccurate historical reportage did not include the photo of the page where I got it wrong the first time. I think this is what people call "p-hacking"
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from sil@mastodon.social
@sil I like to think there was a Douglas Adams style narrative where he died penniless due to an error in his book of lookup tables
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from simon@fosstodon.org
@simon possible, but I doubt it -- the bit in The Sting where Paul Newman does all the card shuffling stuff was actually him, so I suspect he had a bob or two tucked away, in addition to being very good at gambling which pays well if you get it right :)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from sil@mastodon.social
@sil You're dividing one integer by another - it's already a fraction! Just need to multiply by 100 to turn it into a percentage, then reduce by common factors.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from cjwatson@mastodon.ie
@sil So 234000/22100, 10 clearly goes, remainder is 13000/22100 = 130/221, which look coprime to me though I admit I can't be bothered to check.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from cjwatson@mastodon.ie
@sil which in fact reduces to 10/17, oops. Apparently not good at spotting factors of 13 in my head
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from cjwatson@mastodon.ie
@cjwatson you don't know your 17 times table? tch the state of education these days, wasn't like that when people cared, etc, etc, etc
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from sil@mastodon.social
@sil @cjwatson that's what Wolframalpha is for!
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from juliank@mastodon.social
@cjwatson sure, if you want it as a fraction you do the (long) division, get the remainder, put the remainder over the dividend, cancel. But then you get a fractional part which looks like something over 22100, which in no way is ever going to cancel to something over either 17 or 123, hence my puzzlement :)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from sil@mastodon.social
@cjwatson and since you've gotta basically do the long division anyway to get the integer part, why would you not carry on doing it to get a decimal part? I have polled a couple of Old People (to whom I happen to be related) and they said yeah, doing long division at school, you'd either report the answer as a decimal, or as 8 remainder 62 or whatever. Nobody seems to have even been taught a procedure which gives you an answer in the form 8 62/1317ths, or whatever. (I can see how to do it!)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from sil@mastodon.social
@cjwatson maybe it was different in the US, though (and pre-war, which my family aren't old enough to have been taught in :))
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from sil@mastodon.social
@sil I sort of feel the transformation from "8 remainder 62 after division by 243" to "8 62/243" is obvious and just a matter of how you choose to spell it, though. But I agree the original author seems to have done something screwy, at a quick glance - almost as if they copied it down and mistranscribed the denominator or something.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from cjwatson@mastodon.ie
@cjwatson that’s fair comment, now that you say it like that, yeah!
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from sil@mastodon.social
@sil my guess is that he might have been using a slide rule, but I'm not altogether certain how you'd do the "closest simple fraction" thing. Both incorrect fractions are "1/something" so maybe he was trying to calculate an inverse?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from jamesh@aus.social
@jamesh ooh slide rule. I didn’t think of a slide rule. Never used one :)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from sil@mastodon.social
@sil people would have hated doing long division back then too 😃
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from jamesh@aus.social
@sil @jamesh slide ruler*?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from mdione@en.osm.town
@mdione @sil One of these things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slide_rule
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from jamesh@aus.social
@jamesh @sil exactly. My father had one. He never taught me how to use it. We either lost it, broke it or both :(
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from mdione@en.osm.town
@jamesh @sil oh, they are called slide rule? Not ruler? Because my father's has a metallic edge with centimeters and millimeter etched into it to measure and draw straight line. In Spanish they're called "regla de cálculo", 'calculation ruler'.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from mdione@en.osm.town
@sil Further to the guess about using slide rules, if he didn't properly understand log scale that could explain why his results skew downwards.
The half way point between two ticks on the rule is not 0.5, but about 0.3. That could explain error in the third decimal place (given the ticks would cover two decimal places).
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from jamesh@aus.social This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini