Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
One thing that's interesting, the average pops out of nowhere. A simulation of this would basically be 100 random numbers, but that doesn't account for people's biases. Maybe there's some gnarly calculus that could do better.
I'm doing some research online about that problem and have come to find some conclusions about numbers people choose that could help implement a simulation, and how I would probably do it.
1. It seems people tend to avoid numbers with single digits.
2. It seems people tend to avoid numbers that end with 0.
3. It seems people tend towards numbers closer to 30-80 (still a big range).
4. It seems numbers highly tend to contain a 7.
Of course, all of this isn't absolute.
However I would probably go about this problem:
- generate a random value 1-100
- check the value of the number,
if single digit, accept it with a certain probability (40%?)
if ends in 0, accept it with a certain probability (60%?)
if outside range 30-80, accept it with a certain probability (85%?)
if its rejected, generate another number and try again.
It's probably how I would work about it, but not sure if it could work. Any idea what's the expected output?
My answer tends slightly higher than the one on that link (theirs: 33.3, mine: 35.85), I'm using a kind of algorithm I explain in a previous post, though my probabilities are rather arbitrary. I'll include my code if you'd like to play around with it.