11
$\begingroup$

I'm certain that I'm forgetting something basic, but here goes. The exploding dice is a (house) rule for some games that says when you roll the maximum result on a given die (e.g. 6 on a six-sided die) you roll that die again and add the result. If you roll the maximum value again, you roll again and add that. This will carry on until you stop rolling the maximum value.

From here, a natural question arises: "what's the average of an exploding die?". With the example of a six-sided die, the following answer comes naturally:

$3.5*+3.5*\frac{1}{6}+3.5*\frac{1}{6^2}\dots=4.2$

This does indeed seem to be correct, and holds to any empirical test that I can think of, but why does this work? I want to use some excuse to the effect of "expected value is linear and we've got identical distributions", but I find that unsatisfactory. In particular, I don't understand why we can use the average values of 3.5 when every term to the right of that 3.5 assumes that we've beat the average. I have no doubt that this is why we need the $6^{-n}$ terms, but my intuition insists that this is insufficient.

Note: What I really want here is to see the rigor. An ideal answer will attack this from the ground up, possibly even axiomatically. I'd hope that we don't have to go as deep as using probability measures on sets, but at the very least I want some answer that focuses on what property of averages allows us to factor the dice like this.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ "I don't understand why we can use the average values of 3.5 when every term to the right of that 3.5 assumes that we've beat the average". Consider that the full expression for the average is infinite (a geometrical series with ratio 1/6), but if we want to get insight into it, we can truncate that chain of rolls/truncate the expression at the n'th term and sum its partial value. This is as true as for any convergent geometrical series (with ratio |r| < 1). $\endgroup$
    – smci
    Commented Sep 8, 2019 at 3:37
  • $\begingroup$ "what property of averages allows us to factor the dice like this." merely the same (algebraic) property that allows you to sum a (convergent) geometrical series (when |r|<1), namely by factoring out successive terms with ratio r. Conversely, why is convergent geometrical series summable? Same reason. $\endgroup$
    – smci
    Commented Sep 8, 2019 at 3:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Strictly, we're not "treating exploding die as if they're independent". We're treating the chain of events involved in computing the expectation for one exploding die as if the probability of rolling each successive 6 versus a non-6 were independent (which they are, by definition: the die can't be both 6 and non-6). $\endgroup$
    – smci
    Commented Sep 8, 2019 at 3:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The $n$th occurrence of $3.5$ in the formula is just the expected amount that the $n$th roll of the die will add to the total if we make an $n$th roll. That expected value doesn't include the additional value that might be added on subsequent rolls if you roll a $6$; the additional value is covered by the later terms. $\endgroup$
    – David K
    Commented Sep 8, 2019 at 13:50
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Also, the terms to the right of the $n$th term do *not* assume that the $n$th term beat the average. If they *did* assume such a thing, they wouldn't be multiplied by higher powers of $\frac16$. The powers of $\frac16$ account for the fact that you probably do not beat the average on any given roll. $\endgroup$
    – David K
    Commented Sep 8, 2019 at 13:52

3 Answers 3

19
$\begingroup$

Another way to look at it:

Let $E$ denote the answer. Suppose you toss the die once. One of two things happens..either you get a value below $6$ or you get a $6$ and start over (from which point, of course, you expect to get an additional $E$). Thus we have $$E=\frac 16\times (1+2+3+4+5)+\frac 16\times (6+E)\implies E=\frac {21}5$$ as desired.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ that's clever ! $\endgroup$
    – Fattie
    Commented Sep 8, 2019 at 11:25
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ This is clever, but tricky. One has to prove somehow first that this particular random generator has a finite average. Only then it can be given label E and only then this answer works will full rigor. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 8, 2019 at 17:03
  • $\begingroup$ @JirkaHanika existence is usually easy to prove in this sort of context. Here, as often, it follows from routine consideration of the geometric series. But as the OP was already playing with geometric series, I didn't imagine that this was the issue. $\endgroup$
    – lulu
    Commented Sep 8, 2019 at 23:23
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It's a clever way to get the numerical answer to the problem fast, but it does not answer the question. The OP was asking about the logic behind this infinite sum. The accepted answer gives a nice explanation. $\endgroup$
    – Thanassis
    Commented Sep 8, 2019 at 23:47
10
$\begingroup$

This does indeed come from linearity of expectation - but you have to be really careful about what exactly you're applying this theorem to. In particular, let's examine some random variables. In a given trial (i.e. you roll the dice until you get something other than $6$), let us define some quantities. First, let $X$ be the total achieved. Let $X_1$ be the portion of this due to the first roll and $X_2$ be the portion due to the second roll (which is $0$ if there was no second roll) and so on.

We then have that $X=X_1+X_2+X_3+\ldots$ noting that, almost certainly, there are only finitely many non-zero terms in the sum and also - in case we should later worry about issues of convergence - that these are all non-negative quantities, so we are justified in applying linearity of expectations to this to get $$\mathbb E[X]=\mathbb E[X_1]+\mathbb E[X_2]+\ldots$$ Then, we just compute $\mathbb E[X_n]$. This is straightforwards: There is a $\frac{1}{6^{n-1}}$ chance that we will roll for an $n^{th}$ time and, given that we do roll, the expected roll is $3.5$ as it is just a typical die roll. So, $\mathbb E[X_n]=\frac{1}{6^{n-1}}\cdot 3.5$ as given in the solution which gives $$\mathbb E[X]=(1+1/6+1/6^2+1/6^3+\ldots)\cdot 3.5$$ Note that, via this approach, we never consider whether a die actually was $6$ except in determining whether we reach the $n^{th}$ roll - that's because, to compute expectation, we are splitting into the cases of "I roll this die" and "I don't roll this die" which do not bias the roll of the die at all. Basically, we are allowed to imagine, while computing each expectation, that this is the last roll, regardless of whether we get a $6$ because no further information is relevant to the value of $X_n$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You've got it! The key part here is what "the portion due to the second roll" means. When you think about the probability distribution, you can see that X_2 is 1 with probability 1/36, 2 with probability 1/36, and so on until you see that it's 0 with probability 30/36 (i.e. 5/6). From here, the average of each X_n is easy to work out and it really just is linearity of expectation. $\endgroup$
    – J. Mini
    Commented Sep 7, 2019 at 18:48
2
$\begingroup$

The series you have there represents

The expected value of the first die throw, plus the probability that you get a second throw times the expected value of the second die, plus the probability that you get a third throw times the expected value of the third throw, plus ...

It is basically what you get if you write down what the expectation is straight from the definition, and tidy up a little: $$ \frac16\cdot1+\cdots+\frac16\cdot 5+\frac16\cdot \left(6+ \frac16\cdot1+\cdots+\frac16\cdot 5+\frac16\cdot \left(6+ \cdots \right) \right) $$

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .