## Le Monde puzzle [#783]

Posted in R, Travel, University life with tags , , , on July 21, 2012 by xi'an

In a political party, there are as many cells as there are members and each member belongs to at least one cell. Each cell has five members and an arbitrary pair of cells only shares one member. How many members are there in this political party?

Back to the mathematical puzzles of Le Monde (science leaflet of the weekend edition)! In addition to a tribune by Cédric Villani celebrating the 100th anniversary of the death of Henri Poincaré, this issue [now of last week] offers this interesting challenge. So much interesting that I could only solve it for three (instead of five) members and could not see the mathematical notion behind the puzzle…

Let us denote by n the number of both the cells and the number of members. Then, when picking an arbitrary order on the sets, if ij denotes the number of members in set j already seen in sets with lower indices, we have the following equality on the total number of members

$n = 5n -i_2-\cdots-i_n$

and the constraints are that i2<2, i3<3, i4<4, i5<5, and ij<6, for j>5. Hence, i2+i3+i4+i5+…+in≤5n-15, which implies n≥15.

Now, in terms of analytics, I could not go much further and thus turned to an R code to see if I could find a solution by brute force. Here is my code (where the argument a is the number of elements in each set): Continue reading

## more typos in Monte Carlo statistical methods

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , on October 28, 2011 by xi'an

Jan Hanning kindly sent me this email about several difficulties with Chapters 3, Monte Carlo Integration, and  5, Monte Carlo Optimization, when teaching out of our book Monte Carlo Statistical Methods [my replies in italics between square brackets, apologies for the late reply and posting, as well as for the confusion thus created. Of course, the additional typos will soon be included in the typo lists on my book webpage.]:

1. I seem to be unable to reproduce Table 3.3 on page 88 – especially the chi-square column does not look quite right. [No, they definitely are not right: the true χ² quantiles should be 2.70, 3.84, and 6.63, at the levels 0.1, 0.05, and 0.01, respectively. I actually fail to understand how we got this table that wrong…]
2. The second question  I have is the choice of the U(0,1) in this Example 3.6. It  feels to me that a choice of Beta(23.5,18.5) for p1 and Beta(36.5,5.5) for p2 might give a better representation based on the data we have. Any comments? [I am plainly uncertain about this… Yours is the choice based on the posterior Beta coefficient distributions associated with Jeffreys prior, hence making the best use of the data. I wonder whether or not we should remove this example altogether… It is certainly “better” than the uniform. However, in my opinion, there is no proper choice for the distribution of the pi‘s because we are mixing there a likelihood-ratio solution with a Bayesian perspective on the predictive distribution of the likelihood-ratio. If anything, this exposes the shortcomings of a classical approach, but it is likely to confuse the students! Anyway, this is a very interesting problem.]
3. My students discovered that Problem 5.19 has the following typos, copying from their e-mail: “x_x” should be “x_i” [sure!]. There are a few “( )”s missing here and there [yes!]. Most importantly, the likelihood/density seems incorrect. The normalizing constant should be the reciprocal of the one showed in the book [oh dear, indeed, the constant in the exponential density did not get to the denominator…]. As a result, all the formulas would differ except the ones in part (a). [they clearly need to be rewritten, sorry about this mess!]
4. I am unsure about the if and only if part of the Theorem 5.15 [namely that the likelihood sequence is stationary if and only if the Q function in the E step has reached a stationary point]. It appears to me that a condition for the “if part” is missing [the “only if” part is a direct consequence of Jensen’s inequality]. Indeed Theorem 1 of Dempster et al 1977 has an extra condition [note that the original proof for convergence of EM has a flaw, as discussed here]. Am I missing something obvious? [maybe: it seems to me that, once Q reaches a fixed point, the likelihood L does not change… It is thus tautological, not a proof of convergence! But the theorem says a wee more, so this needs investigating. As Jan remarked, there is no symmetry in the Q function…]
5. Should there be a (n-m) in the last term of formula (5.17)? [yes, indeed!, multiply the last term by (n-m)]
6. Finally, I am a bit confused about the likelihood in Example 5.22 [which is a capture-recapture model]. Assume that Hij=k [meaning the animal i is in state k at time j]. Do you assume that you observed Xijr [which is the capture indicator for animal i at time j in zone k: it is equal to 1 for at most one k] as a Binomial B(n,pr) even for r≠k? [no, we observe all Xijr‘s with r≠k equal to zero]  The nature of the problem seems to suggest that the answer is no [for other indices, Xijr is always zero, indeed] If that is the case I do not see where the power on top of (1-pk) in the middle of the page 185 comes from [when the capture indices are zero, they do not contribute to the sum, which explains for this condensed formula. Therefore, I do not think there is anything wrong with this over-parameterised representation of the missing variables.]
7. In Section 5.3.4, there seems to be a missing minus sign in the approximation formula for the variance [indeed, shame on us for missing the minus in the observed information matrix!]
8. I could not find the definition of $\mathbb{N}^*$ in Theorem 6.15. Is it all natural numbers or all integers? May be it would help to include it in Appendix B. [Surprising! This is the set of all positive integers, I thought this was a standard math notation…]
9. In Definition 6.27, you probably want to say covering of A and not X. [Yes, we were already thinking of the next theorem, most likely!]
10. In Proposition 6.33 –   all x in A instead of all x in X. [Yes, again! As shown in the proof. Even though it also holds for all x in X]

Thanks a ton to Jan and to his UNC students (and apologies for leading them astray with those typos!!!)