Spelling Bees

IF 2.3 2区文学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL

American Behavioral Scientist Pub Date : 2024-03-28 DOI:10.1177/00027642241237929

James W. Boudreau, Jeremy Kettering, Shane D. Sanders

引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this note, we consider a form of competition in which two contestants face separate sequences of independent trials. The contestant with the longer sequence of successful trials wins. However, since the trials are independent, there may be a form of paradox whereby the loser is able to pass all of the trials in the winner’s sequence, whereas the winner could not have overcome two or more trials in the loser’s sequence. We refer to this as the spelling bee paradox and explore its likelihood in simple settings. JEL Classification Codes: C46, D74, Z29.

查看原文本刊更多论文

拼写蜜蜂

在本说明中，我们考虑了一种竞争形式，即两名参赛者分别面对不同的独立试验序列。成功试验序列较长的参赛者获胜。然而，由于试验是独立的，可能会出现一种悖论，即失败者能够通过获胜者序列中的所有试验，而获胜者却无法通过失败者序列中的两个或更多试验。我们将其称为 "拼字蜜蜂悖论"，并探讨其在简单设置中的可能性。JEL 分类代码：C46, D74, Z29C46, D74, Z29.

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

American Behavioral Scientist Multiple-

CiteScore

6.70

自引率

3.10%

发文量

190

期刊介绍： American Behavioral Scientist has been a valuable source of information for scholars, researchers, professionals, and students, providing in-depth perspectives on intriguing contemporary topics throughout the social and behavioral sciences. Each issue offers comprehensive analysis of a single topic, examining such important and diverse arenas as sociology, international and U.S. politics, behavioral sciences, communication and media, economics, education, ethnic and racial studies, terrorism, and public service. The journal"s interdisciplinary approach stimulates creativity and occasionally, controversy within the emerging frontiers of the social sciences, exploring the critical issues that affect our world and challenge our thinking.