Learn

Learning preferences

Make learning more comfortable. Changes apply immediately.

Enlarges page content, including diagrams and their labels. You can also use your browser’s zoom.

Choose the colours that are easiest for you to distinguish. Applies to lesson diagrams and lab plots. Labels, shapes, hatching and line patterns also distinguish meanings. Source photographs and raw image brightness stay unchanged; mask-only views are available for image overlays.

ExampleComparisonSample link

Saved in this browser on this device. Preferences are separate from progress backups.

Separate transfer evidence · version 1

Probability investigation: arrival dependence, route termination and incomplete evidence: changed case

Address this changed case in a fresh argument. Explain which earlier conclusions survive and which require new evidence. This is public practice with available guidance; it is not an untouched examination. Your responses and guidance exposure are stored separately from the main project.

Predict, simulate, then audit

Two separate synthetic experiments: arrival counts in equal windows and a routing chain starting at A. These do not model a queue or completion deadlines. Settings and results are temporary; copy evidence into your investigation report.

Before running, predict the chance of two empty windows and whether every routing path eventually exits. Compare an independent-increments model with a process that copies its first window.

Bounded CPU experiment

Loading saved investigation…

0 of 1 transfer tasks have recorded responses. This counts submissions, not quality, independent review or project mastery.

Changed case: a shared rate and a rare exit

Work outside the widget on two unfamiliar model changes. First, a pair of one-hour windows shares a hidden rate Λ: it is 0 or 4 per hour with equal probability. Conditional on the rate, the two counts are independent Poisson(Λ); rate zero means no events, not an Exp(0) sampler. Compare this with refreshing Λ independently in each window. Derive each one-window mean/variance, pair covariance and pair-zero probability, then propose a paired observation that distinguishes the constructions. Second, change the trapped route to A→B,C each with probability 1/2, B→B with probability 99/100 and B→D with probability 1/100. Derive eventual C/D probabilities, mean transitions and survival after an integer m≥1. Compute exact expressions for D-by-m and E[min(T,m)], and explain why many unresolved paths at m=64 do not prove nonabsorption. Contrast with setting the exit probability exactly to zero. Supply your own complete argument, cite assistance and preserve this response separately from the main manuscript.

Structure your argument and preserve revisions

These optional planning fields save locally. Recording your response saves an immutable copy of the argument and these fields. Older records may contain only first/latest responses; missing intermediate revisions are not reconstructed.

Each field allows 2,000 characters. Keep a specific claim, state where it applies, cite the facts you use, and explain what still needs checking. Blank fields are allowed and are not evidence of mastery.

Review, defend and revise

Ask a reviewer to examine the complete reasoning, reproduce selected results and pose an unfamiliar case. Record their feedback against the specific revision discussed. Reviewer labels are entered locally and do not verify identity or judgment. A complete set of text submissions does not certify an independently defended investigation.

Targeted lesson returns

Return to the main investigation · Course overview · Saved work and backups