#584 - Birthday Problem Revisited
A long long time ago in a galaxy far far away, the Wimwians, inhabitants of planet WimWi, discovered an unmanned drone that had landed on their planet. On examining the drone, they uncovered a device that sought the answer for the so called "Birthday Problem". The description of the problem was as follows:
If people on your planet were to enter a very large room one by one, what will be the expected number of people in the room when you first find 3 people with Birthdays within 1 day from each other.
The description further instructed them to enter the answer into the device and send the drone into space again. Startled by this turn of events, the Wimwians consulted their best mathematicians. Each year on Wimwi has 10 days and the mathematicians assumed equally likely birthdays and ignored leap years (leap years in Wimwi have 11 days), and found 5.78688636 to be the required answer. As such, the Wimwians entered this answer and sent the drone back into space.
After traveling light years away, the drone then landed on planet Joka. The same events ensued except this time, the numbers in the device had changed due to some unknown technical issues. The description read:
If people on your planet were to enter a very large room one by one, what will be the expected number of people in the room when you first find 3 people with Birthdays within 7 days from each other.
With a 100-day year on the planet, the Jokars (inhabitants of Joka) found the answer to be 8.48967364 (rounded to 8 decimal places because the device allowed only 8 places after the decimal point) assuming equally likely birthdays. They too entered the answer into the device and launched the drone into space again.
This time the drone landed on planet Earth. As before the numbers in the problem description had changed. It read:
If people on your planet were to enter a very large room one by one, what will be the expected number of people in the room when you first find 4 people with Birthdays within 7 days from each other.
What would be the answer (rounded to eight places after the decimal point) the people of Earth have to enter into the device for a year with 365 days? Ignore leap years. Also assume that all birthdays are equally likely and independent of each other.
Problem text © Project Euler, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Original: projecteuler.net/problem=584. Published Saturday, 31st December 2016, 04:00 pm. Solved by 260 members at time of mirroring.
Why this is useful
Probability Statistics. Expectation and state-based probability reasoning underpin pricing, risk, and statistical inference (Phases 7, 11, 13).
We classify relevance honestly - not every Euler problem is a trading application.
Prerequisites
Lessons that prepare you:
13.2 Monte Carlo Estimation and Error Analysis · 19.14 Computational Complexity, Feasibility Estimation, and Proving Algorithms Correct · 19.7 Dynamic Programming: Memoization and Tabulation · 19.4 Exact Arithmetic: Big Integers, Rationals, and Floating-Point Traps · 2.4 Taylor Series and Local Approximation · 5.1 Floating-Point Arithmetic, Conditioning, and Stability · 7.3 Independence, Conditional Probability, and Conditional Expectation · 7.2 Expectation, Moments, and Key Inequalities · 7.1 Probability Spaces, Random Variables, and Distributions
Recommended stepping-stone problems: #262 · #198 · #756
Concepts: game-theory numerical-methods probability brute-force-reduction
Likely techniques: precision-control
Learning mode
Pick how much scaffolding you want. Your choice is remembered per problem.
Understand the problem
- What exactly is the input to problem 584? Is it a bound (365), a supplied dataset, or a definition you must generate from?
- What is the required output - restate it precisely: a single exact integer.
- Which objects exactly are in scope, and which are excluded by the wording (strict vs non-strict inequality, 'distinct', 'proper', 'below' vs 'up to')?
- What constraint does the bound 365 impose, and is it inclusive or exclusive?
- What are the edge cases: the smallest legal object, zero/one, ties, and the boundary at exactly 365?
- Why is brute force hard HERE specifically? Estimate the number of candidates implied by 365 and the cost of testing one.
- Which numerical-methods fact would, if true, collapse the search - and can you state it as a testable claim before you look for a proof?
Predict & plan (before you code)
- Predict the strategy: in one sentence, what will your solution do? (The classification says numerical-methods / precision-control - do you agree, and why?)
- Predict the complexity of your intended method in terms of N = 365, and the wall-clock time you expect. Write both down now.
- Predict the key data structure: what is stored, keyed by what, and how large will it get at full scale?
- Predict the failure mode: what is most likely to break - an off-by-one on the bound, a definition misread, precision, or memory?
- Predict the output of the small case from rung 3 BEFORE running it - then run it. A surprise here is worth more than an hour of debugging later.
Scratchpad
Mathematical notes, formulas, pseudocode, hypotheses, complexity notes. Saved automatically with your progress.
Python workbench
Real Python (Pyodide) in a sandboxed Web Worker - no network, no filesystem, no DOM access. Ctrl/Cmd+Enter runs. Escape leaves the editor. Stop terminates the worker.
Check your answer
Answers are checked against a salted hash held in a separate file - not printed in this page. This prevents accidental spoilers; it is not cryptographic protection (see the build notes).
Progressive hints
Optimization
You have a correct answer. That is the start of the learning, not the end.
- Reduce the time complexity. What is the bottleneck, and what mathematical fact removes it?
- Reduce memory. Can you stream, or keep only the last k states?
- Replace brute force with a closed form, a sieve, a recurrence, or a symmetry argument.
- Prove the optimized version computes the same thing.
- Compare two implementations and time them.
Explain it
Which step of your solution were you least confident about, and what evidence would settle it?
What did you try first, and what specifically made you abandon it - a proof, a timing, or a wrong small-case answer?
Where did the numerical-methods structure do the real work? Name the single observation that collapsed the search space.
Could you have reached the precision-control idea faster? Which words in the statement were pointing at it, and did you notice them?
What was the bug that cost you the most time, and what CLASS of bug was it (off-by-one, definition misread, precision, state under-specified)?
How would your solution change if the bound 365 were multiplied by 1000? Does it survive, or does it need a different idea?
What is the honest complexity of what you wrote (not what you intended), and where is the remaining slack?
Which problem you have already solved is this most similar to, and what is the shared skeleton - is it really 'precision-control' underneath?
State the transferable technique in one sentence, without mentioning this problem's story at all.
Self-assess (mastery is not a correct number)
You reach Mastered only when you have solved it, rated yourself at least Solid across the dimensions, and written a real explanation.
Confidence
Low confidence schedules this problem for spaced review, even if you solved it.
Mastery check
- Variation: change the bound (or a rule) in the statement. Does your method still work? What breaks first?
- Constraints: if the limit were 10× larger, which step fails, and what would you replace it with?
- Related problem: #262 · #198 · #756
- Transfer: where else does this technique appear? Name a lesson and a real computational setting.
- Spaced re-attempt: come back after the review interval and re-solve it with no hints.