A Community Math Experiment

The math/science initiative invites the whole SASSDS community to participate in this simple yet thought-provoking mathematical experiment.  The experiment works best when there is something at stake, so it will cost something to participate.  This is the kind of thing that Mrs. Cohen's brother, David Taubenfeld, would have enjoyed.  Hence it is appropriate that the proceeds from this experiment will go to the fund at SASSDS in his memory.

The Experiment

In this experiment each person chooses a whole number greater than zero.  The winner is the person who chose the lowest number that nobody else chose.  For example, if people chose:  1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 19, 22, 22, and 23, then the winner is the person who chose 19.  If every number was chosen by more than one person then there is no winner. 

The Purpose

The purposes of this experiment are:

How to Play

Anyone can play:  kids, families, staff, friends.  You may choose as many numbers as you like.  Each number costs $2.  The more numbers you choose, the greater your chance of winning.  Write down your numbers on a piece of paper (don't tell anyone else your numbers!) and send them along with your check to Rita at the school.  For example, if you want to guess all the numbers 1-100, then write that down and send a check for $200.   Numbers will be accepted through Friday, January 13, 2006.

Children can particiapte in school by bringing their number with $2 to Rita.  The winning number will be announced after Martin Luther King Day.  To encourage people to make serious choices, 10% of all money collected will go to the person who chose the winning number.  The other 90% will go to the fund in memory of David Taubenfeld.  

The Mathematics is Hard

Analyzing this game proves to be very difficult even in the very simple situation where there are just three players each restricted to choosing one number.  The first person might reason that choosing 1, the lowest number available, is a good idea.  However, if one of the other two players reasons the same way, then neither they nor the first player will win.  Both players therefore may decide that choosing higher is worthwhile, but then the third player could win just by choosing 1.   Removing the restriction of choosing just one number makes the experiment more interesting but less easy to analyze.  For example, if any player wanted to spend more money in order to choose extra numbers, that player could guarantee a win by choosing the numbers 1, 2, and 3.  As long as the other two players reamined with one number each, this player is sure to have the lowest number that nobody else chose.  Just as surely, the other players could put up more money and choose more numbers themselves in order to defend against this strategy.

The game is even harder to analyze when there are more players involved.  For example, if 1000 people were playing then you would probably not guess anything from 1 to 10, figuring that other people would cover these numbers.  However, if everyone reasoned this way then the numbers 1 to 10 would make excellent choices!

The one thing that seems clear is that the numbers you choose should be in some way proportional to the number of people who are playing, and the number of choices they make.  For example, if a million people are playing, then it seems more likely that the small numbers will be covered by other people, freeing you up to choose larger numbers.  With a million players, the ultimate winning number might easily be a number in the thousands.  On the other hand, with only three players one would expect the winning number to be 1 or 2.

What a Mathematician Might Ask

A mathematician would first concentrate on the simpler version of the game where each person chooses one number, leaving the harder version (where each person can choose more than one number) for later investigation.  For the one number per peson game, he/she might wonder about the relationship between the total number of chosen numbers and the expected (or average) winning number.  This is the kind of question that is hard to analyze, but easy to explore via experiment.  You normally think of scientists as the ones who do experiments, but mathematicians do experiments too!  It is common for mathematicians to experiment and use the data to help direct their search for a theory.

A Conjecture Without Much Confidence

Let n be the number of chosen numbers,  I conjecture that, in practice (with serious participants and choices), the winning number will be around the square root of n.  I cannot give much support for this conjecture because my reasons are vague and not well analyzed yet, but the conjecture assumes that all players chose just one number.   I am hoping that the results of our experiment together will support or refute this conjecture.  If the results of the experiment supports the conjecture, then I would be willing to put a more serious effort into a proof.
 
Number of Chosen Numbers
The Winning Number
25
5
36
6
49
7
100
10
256
16

Are There Other Math Games Like This One?

Yes.  There is a similar game that you can play with just two people.  It defies precise analysis without experiment.  It also makes a great diversion for those long car rides, after the kids have asked for the 30th time "are we there yet?".  Each person simulataneously yells out a whole number greater than zero.  If your number is exactly one greater than the other person's then you win and you get your number for a score.  For example, if you yell 4 and your buddy yells 3, then you get 4 points.  If your number is more than one higher than your buddy's number, then your buddy wins and gets his number for a score.  For example, if you yell out 4 and your friend yells 2, then your friend wins and scores 2 points.  Of course if you both yell out the same number then nobody scores on that round.  The games continues until a player gets 21 points.  That player is the winner.  A friend suggested that for kids, it might be easier to play this game with cards instead of voices.  Each kid holds his choice face down until both players are ready, and then the cards are faced.

The winning and losing is incidental to the real point of this game.  The real point is to experiment and observe the value of the highest number yelled out by anyone in the course of the game.  In a 21 point game, with serious motivated players (frivolous choices can ruin the fun, math, and spirit of the game), I have never seen anyone yell out more than 9.  This number will of course vary with each game, but after many games, you can make a good calculation of the average highest number that gets yelled out.  My experience gives about 4.6.

The longer the game continues, the more likely it seems for a larger number to be called out.  You must play the game in order to understand this.  The players end up spiralling upwards trying to outdo each other by exactly one, and at some point someone blinks and shoots back down for a sure easy small score.

What is the relationship between the number of points needed to win the game and the expected (average) highest number called out during the course of the game?  Nobody yet has a coherent theory that predicts this expected high value, given the number of points needed to win.  Happy experimenting!

Results

Results were tabulated on January 16, 2006.  The winning number was 5, picked by Marty Sirkin .   Here are some interesting statisctics.

Smallest Number Chosen:                1

Largest Number Chosen:                1,986,000

Most Commonly Chosen Numbers:      1 and 3 (3 times)

Number of People Playing:                18

Number of Numbers Picked:            110

Smallest Number Not Chosen:          2

Number of One Digit Numbers:        10

Number of Two Digit Numbers:        40

Conclusions

Our conjecture was that the winning number would be close to the square root of the number of entries.  Notice that the winning number was 5 (smallest number picked only once), the number of entries was 110, while the number of distinct people playing was only 18.  Do you think the data from our experiment convincingly confirms or refutes our conjecture?  Can you refine the conjecture based on this data?  What follow-up experiment would help you decide?


Back to Homepage

 


Email me: shai@stonehill.edu

My professional homepage