“Mathematician John von Neumann is credited with figuring out how to take a p biased coin and “simulate” a fair coin. Simply flip the coin twice. If it comes up heads both times or tails both times, then flip it twice again. Eventually, you’ll get two different flips — either a heads and then a tails, or a tails and then a heads, with each of these two cases equally likely. Once you get two different flips, you can call the second of those flips the outcome of your “simulation.” For any value of p between zero and one, this procedure will always return heads half the time and tails half the time. This is pretty remarkable! But there’s a downside to von Neumann’s approach — you don’t know how long the simulation will last.”The Riddler

**T**he associated riddle (first one of the post-T era!) is to figure out what are the values of p for which an algorithm can be derived for simulating a fair coin in at most three flips. In one single flip, p=½ sounds like the unique solution. For two flips, p²,(1-p)^2,2p(1-p)=½ work, but so do p+(1-p)p,(1-p)+p(1-p)=½, and the number of cases grows for three flips at most. However, since we can have 2³=8 different sequences, there are 2⁸ ways to aggregate these events and thus at most 2⁸ resulting probabilities (including 0 and 1). Running a quick R code and checking for proximity to ½ of any of these sums leads to

[1] 0.2062997 0.7937005 #p^3 [1] 0.2113249 0.7886753 #p^3+(1-p)^3 [1] 0.2281555 0.7718448 #p^3+p(1-p)^2 [1] 0.2372862 0.7627143 #p^3+(1-p)^3+p(1-p)^2 [1] 0.2653019 0.7346988 #p^3+2p(1-p)^2 [1] 0.2928933 0.7071078 #p^2 [1] 0.3154489 0.6845518 #p^3+2p^2(1-p) [1] 0.352201 0.6477993 #p^3+p(1-p)^2+p^2(1-p) [1] 0.4030316 0.5969686 #p^3+p(1-p)^2+3(1-p)p^2 [1] 0.5

which correspond to 1-p³=½, p³+(1-p)³=½,(1-p)³+(1-p)p²=½,p³+(1-p)³+p²(1-p),(1-p)³+2(1-p)p²=½,1-p²=½, p³+(1-p)³+p²(1-p)=½,(1-p)³+p(1-p)²+p²(1-p)=½,(1-p)³+p²(1-p)+3p(1-p)²=½,p³+p(1-p)²+3(p²(1-p)=½,p³+2p(1-p)²+3(1-p)p²=½,p=½, (plus the symmetric ones), leading to 19 different values of p producing a “fair coin”. Missing any other combination?! Another way to look at the problem is to find all roots of the equations

(None of these solutions is rational, by the way, except p=½.) I also tried this route with a slightly longer R code, calling polyroot, and finding the same 19 roots for three flips, ~~[at least]~~ 271 for four, and ~~[at least]~~ 8641 for five (The Riddler says 8635!). With an imprecision due to numerical rounding by polyroot. (Since the coefficients of the above are not directly providing those of the polynomial, I went through an alternate representation as a polynomial in (1-p)/p, with a straightforward derivation of the coefficients.)