Monday, October 5, 2026

Just keep swimming, normally ...

Another pond that’s also long and straight contains many, many koi. Initially, they’re all placed at the center of the pond, after which they all swim off at random velocities chosen from a normal distribution with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1 mile per hour. A fish with a positive velocity initially swims toward one end of the pond, while a fish with a negative velocity initially swims toward the other end. The fish then swim back and forth, over and over again.

As before, you place a sensor in the water that measures the speed of each passing fish. All speeds are recorded as positive; direction no longer matters. You collect many such measurements over the course of several days, after which you read out the data and compute the average speed the sensor detected. Toward what value will this average speed converge?

As we saw in the Classic problem, with the added caveat that the sensor will pick up absolute speed, rather than signed velocities, if we have $v_i \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1),$ $i = 1, \dots, n,$ then we have $$\hat{v}_n = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^n v_i^2}{\sum_{i=1}^n |v_i|}.$$ Since we have many fish, let's define break the numerator and denominator up and try to use the Central Limit Theorem to understand what will happen in this case.

Let's define $A_n = \sum_{i=1}^n v_i^2$ and $B_n = \sum_{i=1}^n |v_i|.$ Let's first establish the prerequisites for the CLT. Firstly we see that for each $i = 1, \dots, n,$ we have $$\mathbb{E} |v_i| = 2 \int_0^\infty v \frac{e^{-v^2/2}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \,dv = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \left[ - e^{-v^2/2} \right]_{v=0}^{v=\infty} = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \lt \infty,$$ and since each $v_i \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$ we have $$\mathbb{E} v_i^2 = 1.$$ Further we have $$var(|v_i|) = \mathbb{E} \left( |v_i| - \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \right)^2 = \mathbb{E} v_i^2 - 2\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \mathbb{E} |v_i| + \left( \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \right)^2 = 1 - \frac{2}{\pi} \lt \infty$$ and $$var(v_i^2) = \mathbb{E} \left( v_i^2 - 1 \right)^2 = \mathbb{E} v_i^4 - 2 \mathbb{E} v_i^2 + 1 = 3 - 2 + 1 = 2 \lt \infty.$$ Therefore, we see from the CLT, that $A_n \to \mathcal{N} (n, 2n)$ and $B_n \to \mathcal{N} ( n\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}, n(1- \frac{2}{\pi}) ),$ uniformly in distribution. In particular, since we have each $v_i$ is independent we have $$\mathbb{E} \left[ v_i^2 |v_j| \right] = \mathbb{E} \left[ v_i^2 \right] \mathbb{E} |v_j| = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}$$ if $i \ne j$ and \begin{align*}\mathbb{E} |v_i|^3 &= 2 \int_0^\infty v^3 \frac{e^{-v^2/2}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \,dv\\ &= \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \left[ \left( -v^2e^{-v^2/2} \right)_{v=0}^{v=\infty} + 2\int_0^\infty ve^{-v^2/2} \,dv \right]\\ &= 2 \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}},\end{align*} so we further see that \begin{align*}corr(A_n, B_n) &= \mathbb{E} \left[ \left( \frac{A_n - n}{\sqrt{2n}} \right) \left( \frac{B_n - n \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}}{\sqrt{n(1 - \frac{2}{\pi})}} \right) \right]\\ &= \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{n\sqrt{2(\pi-2)}} \mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n v_i^2 |v_j| - n \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \sum_{i=1}^n v_i^2 - n \sum_{j=1}^n |v_j| + n^2 \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \right] \\ &= \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{n \sqrt{2(\pi-2)}} \left( n \left(2 \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \right) + (n^2 - n) \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} - n^2 \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \right) \\ &= \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{ n \sqrt{2(\pi -2)}} \left( n \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \right) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi - 2}}.\end{align*} So in particular, if we define $Z_A, Z_B \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$ with $\mathbb{E} Z_AZ_B = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi-2}},$ then we can define $A_n = n + \sqrt{2n} Z_A$ and $B_n = n\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} + \sqrt{n (1 - \frac{2}{\pi})} Z_B.$

Let's define use the properties of the natural logarithm to see if we can discern the distribution of $\hat{v}_n = A_n / B_n.$ We see that \begin{align*}\ln \hat{v} = \ln \left(\frac{A_n}{B_n}\right) &= \ln \left( \frac{ n + \sqrt{2n} Z_A }{ n\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} + \sqrt{ n(1-\frac{2}{\pi})} Z_B } \right) \\ &= \ln \left( \frac{n}{n \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}} \frac{1 + \sqrt{\frac{2}{n}} Z_A}{1 + \sqrt{ \frac{\pi -2}{2n} } Z_B } \right)\\ &= \ln \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} + \ln \left( 1 + \sqrt{\frac{2}{n}} Z_A \right) - \ln \left( 1 + \sqrt{\frac{ \pi - 2 }{ 2n} } Z_B \right) \\ & \approx \ln \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} + \sqrt{\frac{2}{n}} Z_A - \sqrt{\frac{\pi-2}{2n}} Z_B,\end{align*} where we take advantage of the Taylor approximation $\ln (1+t) = t + O(t^2).$ Let's define $\tilde{Z} = \sqrt{\frac{2}{n}} Z_A - \sqrt{\frac{\pi-2}{2n}} Z_B \sim \mathbb{N}(0,\nu^2),$ where we can calculate \begin{align*}\nu^2 &= \left( \sqrt{\frac{2}{n}} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\pi - 2}{2n} \right)^2 - 2 \left( \sqrt{\frac{2}{n}} \right) \left( \sqrt{\frac{\pi-2}{2n}} \right) \mathbb{E} Z_AZ_B \\&= \frac{2}{n} + \frac{\pi-2}{2n} - 2 \sqrt{ \frac{2}{n} \frac{\pi - 2}{2n} \frac{1}{\pi - 2} } = \frac{\pi-2}{2n}.\end{align*} Therefore, we see that $\hat{v}$ is approximately log-normally distributed as $\hat{v} \sim \text{Log}\mathcal{N} (\mu, \sigma^2)$ with parameters $\mu = \ln \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}$ and $\sigma^2 = \frac{\pi-2}{2n}.$ From here we see that if there are many fish with normally distribution signed velocities, then the average speed recorded by our sensor will converge to $$\lim_{n\to \infty} \mathbb{E} \hat{v}_n = \lim_{n\to \infty} \exp \left( \ln \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} + \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{\pi-2}{2n} \right) \right) = \lim_{n\to\infty} \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \exp \left( \frac{\pi - 2}{4n} \right) = \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}.$$

Just keep swimming ....

Two koi, Nemo and Dory, live in a pond that’s long and straight. All day long, they swim back and forth, over and over again. Nemo supposedly swims at a speed of exactly 1 mile per hour, while Dory swims faster at 2 miles per hour. That said, you design an experiment to measure their speeds.

You place a sensor in the water that measures the speed of any passing fish and records the event in a log. You collect many such measurements over the course of several days, after which you read out the data and compute the average speed of all the events in the log. If indeed the fish’s speeds were 1 and 2 miles per hour, what average should you expect to get?

Let's assume that the pond has a length of $\ell$ miles. No matter where Nemo and Dory start within the pond or where the sensor is, we know that if the fish's speeds really where 1 and 2 miles per hour, respectively, then after $T = 2 \ell$ hours, then Nemo would pass the sensor exactly twice while Dory would pass the sensor exactly four times. Therefore, the sensor's log would read something like $[ 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2 ],$ or any of the other 30 orderings, and thus the average fish speed would be $\frac{ 4 \cdot 2 + 2 \cdot 1 }{4 + 2} = \frac{5}{3}.$

But wait, you say, what if $T$ is not a multiple of $2 \ell$? Let's define the $N_n(T)$ and $N_d(T)$ as the number of times that the sensor picks up Nemo and Demo, respectively. Though obviously counting statistics are defined only on the integers, we see that we should have roughly $$N_n(T) \approx \frac{T}{\ell} \,\, \text{and} \,\, N_d(T) \approx \frac{2T}{\ell}.$$ Therefore, we again arrive at the fact that the average speed recorded by our sensor will be $$\hat{v} = \frac{ 1 \cdot N_n(T) + 2 \cdot N_d(T) }{N_n(T) + N_d(T)} \approx \frac{\frac{T}{\ell} + \frac{4T}{\ell}}{ \frac{T}{\ell} + \frac{2T}{\ell}} = \frac{5}{3}.$$

In general, we see that for any speeds $v_n$ and $v_d,$ that the average speed recorded would be $\hat{v}= \frac{v_n^2 + v_d^2}{v_n + v_d}.$

Monday, September 28, 2026

Triangular Frame Job

Congratulations—you just won your school’s tabletop football championship! You flicked your lucky paper football to victory countless times, and would now like to frame it for posterity. The football is an equilateral triangle with a side length of 1 inch. What is the side length of the smallest square frame that will contain the football?

For this week's Fiddler, let's just skip to the Extra Credit problem where we answer the general question and from which we can infer the answer to the Classic problem, so ...

To add a little excitement to the framing process, your new plan is to spin the triangular football by a random angle, and then frame it with a square that is not rotated. That is, the square consists of two perfectly horizontal sides and two perfectly vertical sides. On average, what can you expect the side length of the smallest resulting square frame to be?

Let's choose how to parameterize everything. Let's assume that one of the corners of our paper football is fixed at the origin, and that for any $\theta \in [0, 2\pi/3],$ that the other two corners are at $$p_1(\theta) = (\cos \theta, \sin \theta)$$ and $$p_2(\theta) = \left(\cos \left(\theta + \frac{\pi}{3}\right), \sin \left(\theta + \frac{\pi}{3} \right) \right).$$

In order to choose the smallest possible square with two sides parallel to the $x$-axis and two sides parallel to the $y$-axis, we need only determine the maximum horizontal and vertical distances between the three corners. Since \begin{align*}\cos \theta - \cos \left( \theta + \frac{\pi}{3} \right) & = \cos \theta - \left( \frac{1}{2} \cos \theta - \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \sin \theta \right) \\ & = \frac{1}{2} \cos \theta + \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \sin \theta \\ & = \sin \left( \theta + \frac{\pi}{6} \right),\end{align*} we see that the maximum horizontal distance between the corners is \begin{align*}h(\theta) &= \max \left\{ \left|\cos \theta\right|, \left| \cos \left(\theta + \frac{\pi}{3} \right)\right|, \left| \cos \theta - \cos \left( \theta + \frac{\pi}{3} \right) \right| \right\}\\ & = \begin{cases} \cos \theta, &\text{for $0 \leq \theta \leq \pi/6;$}\\ \sin \left( \theta + \frac{\pi}{6} \right), &\text{for $\pi/6 \leq \theta \leq \pi/2$;}\\ -\cos \left( \theta + \frac{\pi}{3} \right), &\text{for $\pi/2 \leq \theta \leq 2\pi/3.$}\end{cases}\end{align*} Meanwhile, since \begin{align*}sin(\theta) - \sin\left(\theta + \frac{\pi}{3} \right) & = \sin \theta - \left( \frac{1}{2} \sin \theta + \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \cos \theta \right) \\ &= -\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \cos \theta + \frac{1}{2} \sin \theta \\ &= \sin \left( \theta - \frac{\pi}{3} \right)\end{align*} and because $$\left| \sin \left( \theta - \frac{\pi}{3} \right) \right| \leq \max \left\{ \sin \left( \theta + \frac{\pi}{3} \right), \sin \theta \right\},$$ for all $\theta \in [0, 2\pi/3],$ the maximum vertical distance between the corners is \begin{align*} v(\theta) &= \max \left\{ \left|\sin \theta\right|, \left| \sin \left( \theta + \frac{\pi}{3} \right)\right|, \left| \sin \theta - \sin \left( \theta + \frac{\pi}{3} \right) \right| \right\} \\ &= \begin{cases} \sin \left( \theta + \frac{\pi}{3} \right), &\text{ for $0 \leq \theta \leq \pi/3;$} \\ \sin \theta, &\text{ for $\pi/3 \leq \theta \leq 2\pi/3.$}\end{cases}\end{align*} Since the side length should be the maximum of the vertical and horizontal distances we have $$s(\theta) = \max \{ h(\theta), v(\theta) \} = \begin{cases} \cos \theta, &\text{for $0 \leq \theta \leq \pi/12;$} \\ \sin \left(\theta + \frac{\pi}{3} \right), &\text{for $\pi/12 \leq \theta \leq \pi/4;$}\\ \sin \left( \theta + \frac{\pi}{6} \right), &\text{for $\pi/4 \leq \theta \leq 5\pi/12;$} \\ \sin \theta, &\text{for $5\pi/12 \leq \theta \leq 7\pi/12;$} \\ -\cos \left( \theta + \frac{\pi}{3} \right), &\text{for $7\pi/12 \leq \theta \leq 2\pi/3.$}\end{cases}$$

Therefore, we see that for the Classic problem we want the minimal sidelength under any orientation, which is $$s^* = \min_{\theta \in [0, 2\pi/3]} s(\theta) = \cos \frac{\pi}{12} = \frac{\sqrt{2 + \sqrt{3}}}{2} \approx 0.965925826289\dots$$ Furthermore, we notice that, by symmetry, the average sidelength over any possible orientation is \begin{align*}\bar{s} &= \frac{3}{2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi/3} s(\theta) \,d\theta\\ &= \frac{12}{\pi} \int_0^{\pi/12} \cos \theta \,d\theta\\ &= \frac{12}{\pi} \sin \frac{\pi}{12} = \frac{6}{\pi} \sqrt{ 2 - \sqrt{3} } \approx 0.988615929465\dots.\end{align*}

Monday, September 21, 2026

Cup Swap

My friend has three cups, labeled “A,” “B,” and “C” in a row. She picks two random cups and swaps their position. Then she does this again and again, picking a random pair each time, until all three cups are back in their original order. For example, here is one such sequence of swaps:

  • A, B, C (original)
  • C, B, A (first and third were swapped)
  • B, C, A (first and second were swapped)
  • B, A, C (second and third were swapped)
  • A, B, C (first and second were swapped)

In this example, the cups returned to their original order after four swaps. On average, how many swaps would you expect until the cups return to their original order?

There are six possible states for the cups: ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, and CBA. If we initially set up a Markov chain, with the assumption that each choice of two cups to switch are equally likely, we get the transition matrix $$M = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1/3 & 1/3 & 0 & 0 & 1/3 \\ 1/3 & 0 & 0 & 1/3 & 1/3 & 0 \\ 1/3 & 0 & 0 & 1/3 & 1/3 & 0 \\ 0 & 1/3 & 1/3 & 0 & 0 & 1/3 \\ 0 & 1/3 & 1/3 & 0 & 0 & 1/3 \\ 1/3 & 0 & 0 & 1/3 & 1/3 & 0 \end{pmatrix}.$$ Playing around on with the transition matrix, we see that if we start at ABC, then after an even number of swaps the state can be any one of ABC, BCA or CAB, while after an odd number of swaps the state can be any one of ACB, BAC or CBA. In order to solve this particular problem, let's separate ABC from the other states BCA and CAB. Let's say that we have new states $ABC,$ $X = \{ BCA, CAB \}$ and $Y = \{ACB, BAC, CBA\}.$ In this reduced Markov chain state we see that if you are at $ABC$ then almost surely you end up at $Y$ after a swap; if you are at $X$ then almost surely you end up at $Y$ after a swap; and if you are at $Y$ then with probability 1/3 you end up at $ABC$ and with probability 2/3 you end up at $X$.

Therefore, we see that if $2n$ is the first number of swaps that return you to ABC, then since there needs to be at least one swap from $Y$ to $ABC$, then we must have $(n-1)$ loops from $Y$ to $X.$ Therefore, $$p_n = \mathbb{P} \{ 2n \text{ swaps to first return to ABC } \} = \frac{1}{3} \left( \frac{2}{3} \right)^{n-1},$$ so the expected number of swaps needed to return to ABC is $$E = \sum_{n=1}^\infty 2n p_n = \frac{2}{3} \sum_{n=1}^\infty n \left(\frac{2}{3} \right)^{n-1} = \frac{2}{3} \left( \frac{1}{1-2/3} \right)^2 = 6.$$

Monday, September 7, 2026

Asymmetric Bingo

In a game of “asymmetric bingo,” you and your opponent have two differently sized boards: You play on a 5×5 board, while your opponent has an 8×8 board. The 8×8 board has 64 squares, collectively marked with the numbers 1 through 64 in some random arrangement. Meanwhile, the 5×5 board is populated with 25 numbers chosen and arranged randomly (without replacement) from 1 through 64. There are no “free” squares like there are in traditional bingo.

Here’s how the game works: One at a time, a number from 1 to 64 is drawn randomly, without replacement. If that number appears on your 5×5 board, you place a marker on the corresponding square. Otherwise, your opponent (who is guaranteed to have that number somewhere on their board) places the marker on their corresponding square.

The game ends when one of you has “bingo,” meaning five markers in a row going across, down, or diagonally somewhere on the board. Who is more likely to win this game: you (with the 5×5 board) or your opponent (with the 8×8 board)?

At first, I didn't see that "Otherwise" where I added the emphasis, and said to myself, "Self, this is clearly a losing proposition, the 8x8 board has so many possible winning bingo configurations, $96,$ to be precise, while I and my 5x5 board only have the standard 12." I even offered this version of puzzle in the car while driving to my in-laws house on Sunday morning, and the entire cadre of kids ages 7 through 13 answered that they'd prefer the 8x8 board (though some of their logical reasoning had some gaps). However, then the old adage "Reading comprehension is the silent killer" came back with a vengeance, since then the ``otherwise'' and the blurb at the top saying "you get priority" turned thought process upside-down.

In this case, despite the random arrangement, let's assume that the numbers on the 8x8 board are in lexicographical order, so that the squares along the top row are numbered $1, 2, \dots, 8$ from left to right, then the second row is $9, 10, \dots, 16,$ and so on. Since I am the only player that can mark down any of the numbers on my board, we can effectively remove any of the 25 random numbers on my board from the 8x8 board. For instance, if my board is the numbers say 1 through 25, then we see that my opponent would have a board with 26 through 64 remaining, which would have a total of 22 available bingos in it. On the other hand if my board has the following values $$B = \{1,4,7,10,13,14,16,19,22,24,25,28,29,34,39,40,44,45,48,50,53,54,59,62,64\}, $$ then there is no possible way for your son to win because there are 0 available bingos left on the big board.

Now unlucky for us there are $\binom{64}{25} = 4.01 \times 10^{17}$ different combinations of how to remove 25 squares from a total of 64, so simple enumeration is not going to cut it in this case. However, we can hope that numpy.random.permutation does a relatively good job and hope to simulate our way out of this mess. Using $N=1,000$ samples, first calculate our 5x5 board and then calculate the winning bingos in your 5x5 board and all those remaining bingos that do not contain any of the in the 8x8 board. get the following that the average number of remaining bingos available to your opponent on the 8x8 board is only about 7.3 compared to your guaranteed 12 possible bingos. Given that again we are going to rely on the intuitive sense that the player with more available winning combinations is more likely to win, then you are more likely to win on the 5x5 board than your opponent on the 8x8 board. Going further, though with much less confidence, let's hope that by running a bunch of additional numpy.ranom.permutations and checking whether the 5x5 or 8x8 board wins, we get a win probability that is roughly about $65.56\%$ using these $N=1,000$ samples.

Monday, August 31, 2026

Uniquely Non-Genius Queen Bees

Let’s put the rank of “Genius” aside. Here are some other ranks you can attain in Spelling Bee:

  • Amazing (if you get 50 percent of the maximum, rounded to the nearest whole number)
  • Great (40 percent)
  • Nice (25 percent)
  • Solid (15 percent)
  • Good (8 percent)
  • Moving Up (5 percent)
  • Good Start (2 percent)

Suppose a given round of Spelling Bee has some very large, randomly chosen point total. What is the probability that this total can be precisely determined from these cutoffs (i.e., from “Good Start” through “Amazing,” inclusive)?

The first thing that we see is that there are many, many, many levels that start with $G$, so let's forego the step of naming each function of $Q$ and instead have a mapping $F: \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}^7$ with $$Q \mapsto F(Q) = \begin{pmatrix} [0.5Q], [0.4Q], [0.25Q], [0.15Q], [0.08Q], [0.05Q], [0.02Q] \end{pmatrix} \in \mathbb{N}^7.$$ Firstly, we see that we have the recursion formula $$F(100d+k) = (50d, 40d, 25d, 15d, 8d, 5d, 2d) + F(k),$$ for all $d, k \in \mathbb{N},$ so we need only really calculate the ratio for any sufficiently chosen $100$ values of $Q$ in order to determine how many of those are

Let's start with $Q=101$ and start enumerating:

qF(q) qF(q)
101(50,40,25,15,8,5,2)151(75,60,38,23,12,8,3)
102(51,41,25,15,8,5,2)152(76,61,38,23,12,8,3)
103(51,41,26,15,8,5,2)153(76,61,38,23,12,8,3)
104(52,42,26,16,8,5,2)154(77,62,38,23,12,8,3)
105(52,42,26,16,8,5,2)155(77,62,39,23,12,8,3)
106(53,42,26,16,8,5,2)156(78,62,39,23,12,8,3)
107(53,43,27,16,9,5,2)157(78,63,39,24,13,8,3)
108(54,43,27,16,9,5,2)158(79,63,39,24,13,8,3)
109(54,44,27,16,9,5,2)159(79,64,40,24,13,8,3)
110(55,44,27,16,9,5,2)160(80,64,40,24,13,8,3)
111(55,44,28,17,9,6,2)161(80,64,40,24,13,8,3)
112(56,45,28,17,9,6,2)162(81,65,40,24,13,8,3)
113(56,45,28,17,9,6,2)163(81,65,41,24,13,8,3)
114(57,46,28,17,9,6,2)164(82,66,41,25,13,8,3)
115(57,46,29,17,9,6,2)165(82,66,41,25,13,8,3)
116(58,46,29,17,9,6,2)166(83,66,41,25,13,8,3)
117(58,47,29,18,9,6,2)167(83,67,42,25,13,8,3)
118(59,47,29,18,9,6,2)168(84,67,42,25,13,8,3)
119(59,48,30,18,10,6,2)169(84,68,42,25,14,8,3)
120(60,48,30,18,10,6,2)170(85,68,42,25,14,8,3)
121(60,48,30,18,10,6,2)171(85,68,43,26,14,9,3)
122(61,49,30,18,10,6,2)172(86,69,43,26,14,9,3)
123(61,49,31,18,10,6,2)173(86,69,43,26,14,9,3)
124(62,50,31,19,10,6,2)174(87,70,43,26,14,9,3)
125(62,50,31,19,10,6,2)175(87,70,44,26,14,9,3)
126(63,50,31,19,10,6,3)176(88,70,44,26,14,9,4)
127(63,51,32,19,10,6,3)177(88,71,44,27,14,9,4)
128(64,51,32,19,10,6,3)178(89,71,44,27,14,9,4)
129(64,52,32,19,10,6,3)179(89,72,45,27,14,9,4)
130(65,52,32,19,10,6,3)180(90,72,45,27,14,9,4)
131(65,52,33,20,10,7,3)181(90,72,45,27,14,9,4)
132(66,53,33,20,11,7,3)182(91,73,45,27,15,9,4)
133(66,53,33,20,11,7,3)183(91,73,46,27,15,9,4)
134(67,54,33,20,11,7,3)184(92,74,46,28,15,9,4)
135(67,54,34,20,11,7,3)185(92,74,46,28,15,9,4)
136(68,54,34,20,11,7,3)186(93,74,46,28,15,9,4)
137(68,55,34,21,11,7,3)187(93,75,47,28,15,9,4)
138(69,55,34,21,11,7,3)188(94,75,47,28,15,9,4)
139(69,56,35,21,11,7,3)189(94,76,47,28,15,9,4)
140(70,56,35,21,11,7,3)190(95,76,47,28,15,9,4)
141(70,56,35,21,11,7,3)191(95,76,48,29,15,10,4)
142(71,57,35,21,11,7,3)192(96,77,48,29,15,10,4)
143(71,57,36,21,11,7,3)193(96,77,48,29,15,10,4)
144(72,58,36,22,12,7,3)194(97,78,48,29,16,10,4)
145(72,58,36,22,12,7,3)195(97,78,49,29,16,10,4)
146(73,58,36,22,12,7,3)196(98,78,49,29,16,10,4)
147(73,59,37,22,12,7,3)197(98,79,49,30,16,10,4)
148(74,59,37,22,12,7,3)198(99,79,49,30,16,10,4)
149(74,60,37,22,12,7,3)199(99,80,50,30,16,10,4)
150(75,60,37,22,12,7,3)200(100,80,50,30,16,10,4)

From our recurrence formula we see that $F(100) = F(200) - (50,40,25,15,8,5,2) = (50,40,25,15,8,5,2) = F(101)$ and similarly that $F(201) = F(200).$ Therefore, we see that if $U \subset \mathbb{N}$ such that the values of $Q$ can be uniquely recovered from the mapping $F,$ then the only integers in \begin{align*}\{ 101, \dots, 200 \} \setminus U &= \{ 101, 104, 105, 112, 113, 120, \\ & \quad\quad 121, 124, 125, 132, 133, 140, \\ & \quad\quad 141, 144, 145, 152, 153, 160,\\ &\quad\quad 161, 164, 165, 172, 173, 180, \\ &\quad\quad 181, 184, 185, 192, 193, 200 \},\end{align*} which means that we are left with $$\left|U \cap \{101, \dots, 200\}\right| = 100 - 30 = 70.$$ Therefore, availing ourselves of the squeeze theorem and some of the other argumentation that we went through for the classic problem, we have that the probability that this total can be precisely determined from these cutoffs is $$\mathbb{P}(U) = 70\%.$$

Uniquely Genius Queen Bees

In Spelling Bee, a word game from The New York Times, you must create words using seven letters arranged in a honeycomb grid. Letters can be used more than once per word, but each word must be at least four letters long and include the central letter. You may recall a previous puzzle (RIP, FiveThirtyEight) based on Spelling Bee.

Each day, your goal is to score as many points as possible. Four-letter words are worth 1 point, longer words are worth the number of letters they contain, and “pangrams” (words containing every letter) provide 7 bonus points. But these specific details don’t matter for this week’s puzzle.

If you find all the words in a given day and therefore accrue the maximum number of points, you earn the “Queen Bee” ranking. Meanwhile, accruing smaller point totals earns you other rankings. In particular, the point cutoff for “Genius” is 70 percent of the maximum number of points, rounded to the nearest whole number. While the cutoff for “Genius” is clearly displayed in the puzzle, the “Queen Bee” point total is not readily shown.

Of course, this maximum total can be approximated by dividing the “Genius” cutoff by 0.7. Even so, the total may be ambiguous, since multiple “Queen Bee” values can result in the same “Genius” cutoff.

Suppose a given round of Spelling Bee has some very large, randomly chosen point total. What is the probability that this total can be precisely determined (i.e., without any ambiguity) from its point cutoff for “Genius”?

Let's assume that $Q$ is the Queen Bee point total and that $G$ is the Genius cutoff, and we have the functional definition $G: \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$ with $Q \mapsto G(Q) = [ 0.7 Q ],$ where $[\cdot]$ denotes the closest integer function, that is $[t] = \min \arg\!\min \{ |n - t | \mid n \in \mathbb{N} \},$ where we are rounding halves downward towards $0$. While the concept of uniform distribution on the natural numbers is untenable, let us assume that here we mean by some very large, randomly chosen point total of $Q$ that we have the following probabilistic definition. For any subset $A \subseteq \mathbb{N}$, let us define its probability as $$\mathbb{P} (A) = \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{ \left| A \cap \{1, 2, \dots, n \} \right| }{n}.$$ This is loosely a limit of the sequence of uniform distributions on the sets $\{1, 2, \dots, n \}$ as $n \to \infty,$ but again I don't really want to get into the formal definitions of how that limit should be defined, let's just kinda run with it.

Anywhoozle, in this case, let's define $U = \{ n \in \mathbb{N} \mid |G^{-1}(n)| = 1 \}$ to be the desired set of all values of $Q$ that can be precisely and unambiguously determiend by the corresponding value of the $G$ function. It would probably be good to have some idea of what $U$ looks like before plowing ahead and getting to the calculation of the desired answer, that is, $\mathbb{P}(U).$ Let's start super simple and just give the first few values of the $G$ function:

q0.7qG(q)
10.71
21.41
32.12
42.83
53.53
64.24
74.95
85.66
96.36
107.07
117.78

Using these first 10 integers, we see that $3, 6, 7, 10 \in U.$ We also can see that for any $d \in \mathbb{N}$ that $$G(10d+k) = \left[0.7 \left(10d+k\right)\right] = 7d+G(k).$$ So we can surmise that in face for any $Q \in \mathbb{N}$ if $Q\! \mod\! 10 \in \{0, 3, 6, 7 \}$ then $Q \in U,$ then $$U = \left(10 \mathbb{N} \cup (3 + 10 \mathbb{N}) \cup (6 + 10\mathbb{N}) \cup (7 + 10\mathbb{N}) \right).$$ We see that $$\left| U \cap \{ 1,2, \dots, n\} \right| = \begin{cases} 4 \lfloor \frac{n}{10} \rfloor, &\text{if $n \!\mod\! 10 \in \{0,1,2\};$}\\ 4\lfloor \frac{n}{10} \rfloor+1, &\text{if $n \!\mod\!10 \in \{3,4,5\};$}\\ 4\lfloor \frac{n}{10} \rfloor+2, &\text{if $n \!\mod\!10 \equiv 6;$}\\ 4\lfloor \frac{n}{10} \rfloor+3, &\text{if $n \!\mod\!10 \in \{7,8,9\}.$}\end{cases}$$ Using the squeeze theorem and the fact that $$\lim_{n\to \infty} \frac{4 \lfloor \frac{n}{10} \rfloor}{n} \leq \mathbb{P} (U) \leq \lim_{n\to \infty} \frac{4 \lfloor \frac{n}{10} \rfloor + 3}{n},$$ we have the probability of getting a value of $Q$ that is precisely, unambiguously determined from its value of $G$ is $$\mathbb{P} (U) = \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \left| U \cap \{1, 2, \dots, n \} \right| = \frac{2}{5} = 40\%.$$