You are on the coordinate grid at the point ( 1 + 2 , 1 ) and you do a 2 -dimensional completely random walk. Remember that each step size is ‘infinitesimal‘ and you can go in any direction, not just the 4 cardinal directions. Eventually you will cross the x -axis. What is the probability (to the 5 th decimal) that you cross the negative x -axis versus the positive x -axis first? Note: You may also consider a walk with fixed step size and regard the probability as step size approaches 0 ; If you prefer this way of thinking about the problem!
Note/Hint : Solvable by symmetry only!
Note : Insipired by SlightedOcelot.
Hint : Here is warm-up problem.
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Thank you very much for the rigorous solution (I lost you after line 2 :), looks very facy though!) and understandable comments! But I don‘t fully agree with your argument about the problems being too hard. I don‘t think it is necessary to have a formal definition of what a 2-dimensional random walk is. The argument made in my proposed solution of the predecessor goes along everyone‘s intuitive idea of what properties a 2-dimensional random walk has. The numbers of both this and the predecessor’s problems are chosen such that it is possible to solve both problems with very elementary arguments concerning symmetry which are valid assuming any intuitive view of what a 2-dimensional random walk could be (or what properties it should have).
Log in to reply
“Everyone’s intuitive idea of what a 2-dimensional random walk”... That is a big ask. There is a clear idea of what a 2-dimensional random walk is, if there are steps of a fixed length at unit time intervals - the so-called “drunkards walk” problem. But what is actually meant by a continuous random walk..?. That it exists is not intuitive, and the proof that is exists is not easy. The formal mathematical presentation of one-dimensional Brownian motion was only established in 1920, and there are delicate issues to moving up to 2 dimensions.
You argument is based on the idea that in a 2-dimensional continuous random walk, the angle of dispersion from the point of origin should be uniformly distributed. It might be reasonable to hope that some such behaviour was true ( but again, not obvious; look at some sketches of 2-dimensional Brownian motion, and tell me if you are certain). It might be reasonable to presume this angular property at large distances from the point of origin, but we are not at a large distance in thus problem. Whatever we think about its likelihood, however, such behaviour should be established as a theorem that follows from the definition of what the random walk is, and knowing that such a random walk exists in the first place is a rather important starting point, I hope you will agree.
Log in to reply
Okay. But I think that whatever a random walk is, assuming that this problem is anywhat appropiate, if one is starting at the point (1, 1) you should have the same probability of hitting the y-axis and hitting the x-axis (0.5 each). Even if one has no intuitive idea of what such a random walk is. Accepting this property is pretty much enough to justify the solutions of both problems.
Furthermore, I think that it is intuitive that assuming that these problems are appropiate in any sense, the solution to this problem should be the same as the limit of the probability as the step length approaches zero (etc.). In which case the “random walk“ has the properties that justify my argument.
Log in to reply
@Simon Kaib – I still point out that what is intuitive is not always true, and even if true is not always easy to establish. The "simple" statement of the question "eventually you will cross the x-axis" is true (with probability 1), but proving that it is true, rather than just a good idea, requires knowing what you are talking about.
If we accept the "eventually you must cross an axis" idea, then the argument you gave is OK for the first question of the series, but I note that you do not give a solution for this second one, and the only other posted solution argues in terms of uniform distribution of angle, which is much more subtle argument than the line-crossing argument you are making.
If nothing else, I think it should be clear that a thing is possible before asking questions about it... Did you have Brownian motion in mind when asking these questions?
Ultimately, without substantial quantities of Calculus, which enable the low-level arguments you want to make, this is not a question that properly resides within the Logic section.
Log in to reply
@Mark Hennings – Again, I want to thank you for the thoughtful comments. I do agree with many things you have said and should have put more thoughts into uploading this problem.
For the first point you have made, it would have been a good idea to name some properties of a ‘random walk‘ in the definition of the problem (for example that I mean the limit of the probability as step size approaches zero; I am aware that this is not the definition of a random continuous walk, but it shares similar properties regarding this problem) from which statements such as “eventually you must cross any axis“ easily follow (consider 1-dimensional walk, make lower bound approximation 1/2+1/4... for crossing any point).
For the second problem I had the following solution in mind. The line g from (0, 0) to (1, 1) and the x-axis have the same distance to the starting point. Thus by the same argument, they are equally likely to be crossed first. If g is crossed first, we have the situation described in problem 1.
Again, I should have pointed out that the ”random walk” I have described may be assumed. I did know however that Brownian motion existed. I have read a very similar problem on another community that argues alike I did and thought it was neat enough to share with the Brilliant community.
I have changed the section to calculus.
Proceeding the explanation, view the following diagram,
I apologize for the image's vary large and unnecessary size.As stated, a person is heading in a random direction from a specific starting point (marked as a red point where both regions touch) to which they are to reach the x -axis. I have purposely divided these two regions so that one can tell whether the person will hit the negative or positive part of the x -axis based off whether their first step is in the red or blue zone. If one takes their first step in to the red they will meet the positive x -axis, while the opposite is true for the blue zone. The individual must head in one of these two zones or they will never reach the x -axis. Now, we must determine the probably of reaching the negative part of the x -axis. To determine the probability of reaching the specified zone, we will make a ratio comparing the portion of directions that will reach the zone compared to the portion of directions that will just hit the x -axis. To hit the x -axis in general, the person just has to walk in within a π radian sector (or 180 degree sector). The 180 degree sector (which is both read and blue) holds the portion of directions that will just the x -axis in general. Normally, being that starting point is just above the center on the y -axis, the probability would be 2 1 (or there is a 90 degree region for each zone) but the blue region, relative to the starting point, is angularity skewed. The angle of the region that reaches the negative x -axis is equivalent to 90 degrees (or 2 π ) minus the angle of the right triangle, where each leg is equivalent to 1 and 1 + 2 , and the hypotenuse (which doesn't matter in this case) is the distance from the starting point to the center. The angle between the two legs on this triangle is equivalent to a r c t a n ( 1 1 + 2 ) , which, based off the given hint, is the angle 8 3 π . To calculate the angle of the region, we must subtract 2 π ) by 8 3 π . Now, the following is a ratio between these parts:
π 2 π − 8 3 π = 8 1
So I assumed each walk to be a straight line from the given point. This line will always have that given coordinate, so what's variable is the gradient. If this line intercepts the x-axis (positive or negative) then it makes an angle, which is also variable and can be found with trigonometry. For instance, if the line intercepts the origin then the angle the line makes with the horizontal is arctan 1 + 2 1 or 8 p i . This angle goes from 0 to pi radians. Any line that makes an angle to the horizontal greater than 8 p i crosses the positive x-axis, and an angle less than this produces a line that crosses the negative x-axis. If the angle the line makes is random, we need to find the probability that a random angle from 0 to pi radians is less than 8 p i . Dividing 8 p i by pi gives 8 1
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
This question (and its predecessor) is much harder than the author thinks, since there is a significant problem in defining what is actually meant by a " 2 -dimensional completely random walk". Doing this properly requires some significant theory from stochastic differential equations.
What is actually meant by a " 2 -dimensional completely random walk" is what is called a 2 -dimensional Wiener process, which means that the coordinates of the moving particle, relative to its starting point, are ( X t , Y t ) where X t and Y t are independent identically distributed Brownian motion processes. In particular this means that both X t and Y t have the Normal distributions N ( 0 , 2 D t ) , where D is the diffusion coefficient of the system. Further analysis shows that the probability distribution function of the first hitting time T for Y t = 1 is f T ( t ) = 4 π D t 3 1 e x p ( − 4 D t 1 ) The probability that X t < 1 + 2 is ∫ − ∞ 1 + 2 4 π D t 1 e x p ( − 4 D t x 2 ) d x = 2 1 ( 1 + e r f ( 4 D t 1 + 2 ) ) Thus the probability that the random Wiener process crosses the x -axis in the positive half is ∫ 0 ∞ 2 1 ( 1 + e r f ( 4 D t 1 + 2 ) ) f T ( t ) d t = ∫ 0 ∞ 2 1 ( 1 + e r f ( 4 t 1 + 2 ) ) 4 π t 3 1 e x p ( − 4 t 1 ) d t = 2 π 1 ∫ 0 ∞ ( 1 + e r f ( 2 1 + 2 u ) ) e x p ( − 4 1 u 2 ) d u = 8 7 making the desired answer 8 1 .