# Difference between revisions of "Chance News 56"

Line 26: | Line 26: | ||

Dave Kolpack<br> Associated Press<br> | Dave Kolpack<br> Associated Press<br> | ||

October 6, 2009</div> | October 6, 2009</div> | ||

+ | |||

+ | ----- | ||

+ | According to a <i>New Yorker</i> (October 12, 2009) review of Matthew Stewart's <i>The Management Myth: Why the Experts Keep Getting It Wrong</i>, Stewart tells a story about how "his boss taught his twenty-something trainees ... how to conduct a 'two-handed regression'":<blockquote>"When a scatter plot failed to show the signifiant correlation between two variables that we all knew was there, he would place a pair of meaty hands over the offending clouds of data points and thereby reveal the straight line hiding from conventional mathematics."</blockquote> | ||

----- | ----- |

## Revision as of 17:47, 10 October 2009

## Contents

## Quotations

I can calculate the motion of heavenly

bodies but not the madness of people

After losing a fortune in the

South Sea Company bubble of 1720

Trying is the first step towards failure. -- Homer Simpson

## Forsooths

This forsooth is from the October 2009 RSS Forsooth.

Of course in those days we worked on the assumption that everything was normally distributed and we have seen in the last few months that there is no such thing as a normal distribution.

Scientific Computing World

February/March 2009

You can see the context of this comment here.

University of North Dakota researchers found that pilots who ate the fattiest foods such as butter or gravy had the quickest response times in mental tests and made fewer mistakes when flying in tricky cloud conditions.

According to a *New Yorker* (October 12, 2009) review of Matthew Stewart's *The Management Myth: Why the Experts Keep Getting It Wrong*, Stewart tells a story about how "his boss taught his twenty-something trainees ... how to conduct a 'two-handed regression'":

"When a scatter plot failed to show the signifiant correlation between two variables that we all knew was there, he would place a pair of meaty hands over the offending clouds of data points and thereby reveal the straight line hiding from conventional mathematics."

## Minimizing the number of coins jingling in your pocket

Do We Need a 37-Cent Coin? Steven d. Levitt, October 6, 2009, Freakonomics Blog, The New York Times.

The current system of coins in the United States is inefficient. Patrick DeJarnette studied this problem and his work was highlighted in the Freakonomics blog. Dr. DeJarnette makes two assumptions.

1. Some combination of coins must reach every integer value in [0,99].

2. Probability of a transaction resulting in value v is uniform from [0,99].

Under this system, the average number of coins that you would receive in change during a random transaction would be 4.7. The system that would work better is rather bizzarre.

The most efficient systems? The penny, 3-cent piece, 11-cent piece, 37-cent piece, and (1,3,11,38) are tied at 4.10 coins per transaction.

Such a set of coins would be evocative of the monetary system in the Harry Potter books.

The article goes on to discuss systems where the coins are more conveniently priced and which single change in coins would lead to the greatest savings.

Submitted by Steve Simon

### Questions

1. Minimizing the number of coins received in change is not the only criteria for a set of coin denominations. What other criteria make sense.

2. Is it logical to assume a uniform distribution in this problem?

3. What coin could be added to the current mix of coins to minimize the number of coins given in change.