Skip to main content

Pascal's Triangle


 The above is a simple and brilliant mathematical construction, Pascal's triangle, down to the 6th row. 

Before you count the rows yourself and tell me I'm wrong, there are 7, let me make explicit what the small type on the left hand side suggests. The top "row" consisting of just one call, is the 0th row, not the first. The 1st row has two cells. 

Now let us look at the structure of the pyramid. Every outside cell is "1." Every inside cell derives its number from looking over its shoulder, at two of the contiguous cells, and by summing them. For example, the middle cell in the 2d row says "2." That number is the sum of each of the two cells above it, both of which are contiguous with it and above.   

The middle cell of the 4th row says "6." This is the sum of the "3" over each of its shoulders. 

Knowing this, we can figure out how to continue the pyramid to the next, 7th, row if we want. That row would be, 

                                                     1 - 7 - 21 - 35 - 35 - 21 - 1.

Now: what is the significance of this structure? It tells you at a glance the likelihood of any outcome after you have flipped any given number of coins. 

We can arbitrarily stipulate that the left hand side of the pyramid represents ALL TAILS and the right hand side represents ALL HEADS in any given row, and that the interior cells represent all intermediate possibilities.  So, for example, on the 6th, representing 6 coin tosses, there is 1 outcome in which all flips come up tails. There are 6 outcomes in which there is 1 head and 5 tails; 15  in which there are 2 heads and 4 tails, and so forth across the row. 

To assign a fractional probability to an event, take the numerator for that fraction right out of the relevant cell in this pyramid. Add up all the cells in that row and use the sum of them all as the denominator. 

What is the probability of a 3T/3H outcome of 6 throws? To know this, we go of course to the bottom row of the above version of the pyramid. We go to the central cell on that line. The number there is 20. So that is our numerator. Then we add up all the cells. The number we get by doing this is 64. Simpler for most of us, just intuitively keep doubling as your eyes move down the pyramid: one, two, four, eight, sixteen, thirty-two, sixty-four.  

So ... our fraction representing the 3T/3H outcome is 20/64. Reduce that to 5/16. Voila! IYou know that you have 5 chances in 16 of getting that outcome. If you prefer decimal form, that is 0.3125. Or 31.25% if you please. 

I have no real point to make here. I just enjoy the beauty and the simplicity of the pyramid. Also, it was where my train of associations chugged off to after the discussion of lotteries a few days ago.  

Comments

  1. Thanks for this! Being unread on Pascal, I had no knowledge of the triangle. It is interesting how physics and geometry intersect. A three-legged stool is far more stable than a four-legged chair. Symmetrical distribution of force and such.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak