Neither biscuit type can run out in this case. Treat each freely made choice as an independent Bernoulli trial, with success meaning chocolate. The number taken after choices has a binomial distribution, so
The binomial coefficient counts the possible success positions, and every such arrangement has the same probability. Independence of successive choices is the probabilistic model implicit in the question; identical marginal preferences alone would not imply it.
Write the chocolate count as with independent Bernoulli random variables. Each has expected value and variance . By linearity of expected value and additivity of variance for independent variables,
For the last chocolate to be taken on choice , the first choices must include exactly chocolate choices, and choice must take chocolate. Before that final success there is still chocolate available, so no forced plain choice has yet occurred. The negative binomial stopping argument gives
This is the all-trials convention of the negative binomial distribution. The finite examination scenario also has a remaining probability that the tray still contains chocolate after all choices; the displayed probabilities need not sum to one over . At the last chocolate is never taken, and at it is taken on choice .
A forced plain choice occurs exactly when the last chocolate is taken before the final Fellow is served: if it is taken by choice , choice has no chocolate available, whatever that person's preference would have been. Exhaustion precisely on choice forces nobody. The distinct possible exhaustion times are disjoint events, hence
Equivalently, imagine independent preferred choices even after stock is exhausted. The event is that at least preferred chocolate choices occur among the first people, so the binomial distribution gives . The success-count and waiting-time duality explains equality of these two sums. Plain-biscuit depletion cannot interfere because .

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.