The Urinal Problem
Today we study a particular variation of the classic so-called Urinal Problem. For millennia great thinkers like Socrates, Plato, Leonardo da Vinci, Bill Gates and others have pondered the great mysteries of gentlemen’s restroom etiquette. Now it’s my turn to take the problem out for a spin.
The classic definition of the problem, of course, involves an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite number of urinals. It’s easy to see how a problem like that could humble even the greats. In a flight of hubris, even I once made the attempt, and was left humbled and feeling flushed.
For simplicity, we will closely examine a three-urinal subset of n and attempt to fully solve the problem variation.
Abstract. A man walks into a men’s room and observes n empty urinals. Which urinal should he pick so as to minimize his chances of maintaining privacy, i.e., minimize the chance that someone will occupy a urinal beside him? In this paper, we attempt to answer this question under a variety of models for standard men’s room behavior. Our results suggest that for the most part one should probably choose the urinal furthest from the door (with some interesting exceptions). We also suggest a number of variations on the problem that lead to many open problems.
Source: Springer Link – The Urinal Problem. The complete paper is available for purchase.
It was easy to theorize a solution for the three urinal-subset based on the process of elimination (no pun intended). This is also known as The Vizzini Gambit. (See: The Princess Bride.)
Clearly you should not choose the urinal in the center as the next visitor must choose one of the adjacent urinals. Thus, it is obvious that the solution must be one of the end urinals. But which one? Elimination only gets us so far.
As is often the case, field research is required to test theoretical constructs. And that’s where the shit hit the fan. (The results of that experiment are beyond the scope of this article.)
Continue reading →
ESPN goes on strike
Look hard. Can you spot the bullshit? No, it's not the fact that 10 percent of the screen is advertising.
Tonight while channel flipping I happened to catch the last two outs of a game between Boston and Minnesota on ESPN. The first thing that caught my eye was a strike zone graphic. My first thought? “That shit is lame.”
I kept waiting for it to go away. It didn’t.
Don’t get me wrong. I have no problem with the thing on an instant replay, especially on an interesting pitch, situation, or questionable call from the ump.
But to leave that thing on all the time? It’s grotesque.
ESPN calls it the “K-Zone.” If a pitch “should” have been called a strike, regardless of what the umpire called, the box will briefly turn yellow.
Personally I think ESPN is missing a bit opportunity here. Why not fill that space with a Nike logo or a few Viagra pills? More advertising, baby!
As a matter of fact, why not convert the whole grassy area of the ball park into a giant logo. PETCO Park? The athletes could literally be playing on PETCO field!
Speaking of the athletes, there is way too much unused space on their uniforms for more advertising. Perhaps FOX News could adapt their “crawl” to display there. You could be entertained by baseball, learn about important products and be educated in the myriad of ways that Obama sucks – all at the same time!
Talk about multitasking!
Of course, every three seconds or so a blimp should fly across the screen to remind you that it is time to “grab some Buds.”
A few more ideas:
- Display the position over player’s heads at all time. P for pitcher, C for catcher, 1B for the first baseman, etc. Remember: Fans are idiots.
- On fly balls have a little robot run across the screen and display the odds the fielder will drop the ball.
- Display Lady Gaga videos on the mound during the game, because, oh hell! Where else would she be?
Come on, MLB! Think outside the bun! That reminds me. All the bases should be tacos and home plate should be a chalupa.
Shouts from the Abyss 
Recent Comments