/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12271100
>>12271102
I will do this one last time

> boxes have magic walls, or a lid, or are somehow physically intrusive
It doesn't matter. The boxes could be ethereal. The physical context is irrelevant.
The box only acts as a container for a sub group of the set, and hides its content.
This information only defines the parameters of the problem, nothing else.

>So when your hand crosses into the airspace of a box, there's a magic radar that suddenly starts pinging the location of the balls in that box?
No. You don't know where the balls are, because you can't see them.

The boxes could have walls or not, they could be completely open.
The boxes could be juxtaposed or miles away from each other.
It doesn't matter.
The problem perfectly states that the balls are DISTRIBUTED in a particular way in SEPARATE boxes.

" [...] probability that the next ball you take from a box [...]?"
"next ball you take from a box"
from A box.

You can see the box, but you can't see inside it.
You pick a ball from A box, without knowing what's inside it.
Again, the physical context is irrelevant.
But while your hand is in a box, you can't pick a ball from another box.
It's not about physical constraint.
If this were to be written as a program it would behave the same way.
The containers are separate and don't share their content.

Separate boxes. You can't see their content.
You need to pick a ball from A box.
What's in the fucking box?
No idea. The balls were distributed unevenly.
The fact the you need to pick something from a separate container without being able to see what's inside it means you have to pick from A box, a random box.

The point of the boxes is simply to distribute the balls in separate subgroups.
This is just a normal conditional probability problem.

You're the one who puts it in a physical context and ignores the boxes because it wasn't specified that they had material walls separating them.
You ARE exploiting an imaginary loophole.