Timeline for Probability of having a "perfect" game of Set
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Apr 4 at 7:05 | history | suggested | The Amplitwist | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed broken link to Wikipedia; replaced broken links to setgame.com and uccs.edu with WebArchive snapshots
|
| Apr 4 at 4:31 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 4 at 7:05 | |||||
| Oct 5, 2011 at 18:09 | answer | added | Henrik Warne | timeline score: 9 | |
| May 30, 2011 at 14:28 | comment | added | Douglas Zare | One way to get rigorous bounds for the main problem is to note that you have to go through some state with $18$ cards left (with some $12$, $15$, or all $18$ on the table). So, if you analyze all subsets with $18$ cards left which sum to $\vec{0}$ and choose a visible subset then you can get bounds on the probabilities. However, determining the probability of a perfect game for each one seems expensive, even $81 \choose 18$ is huge, and I think the bounds you get are weak. | |
| May 30, 2011 at 6:45 | answer | added | Aaron Meyerowitz | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 30, 2011 at 2:04 | comment | added | Douglas Zare | Looking at $12$ cards, and then extending this to $15$ or $18$ or $21$ if there are no Sets, is quite messy. I would be surprised if you could not get much more accurate estimates from a simulation than you would from pure deduction. | |
| May 30, 2011 at 1:55 | history | edited | Ori Gurel-Gurevich |
edited tags
|
|
| May 30, 2011 at 0:55 | comment | added | Anonymous | Because I personally find provable bounds more interesting.. | |
| May 30, 2011 at 0:10 | comment | added | Douglas Zare | As for the question, why not use a Monte Carlo test? | |
| May 30, 2011 at 0:06 | comment | added | Douglas Zare | You have to make some choices about which nice properties to drop if you want to extend Set to a deck with more than $3$ possible values. | |
| May 29, 2011 at 22:27 | history | asked | Anonymous | CC BY-SA 3.0 |