13 Jun 10
1 edit
A country values men more than women, so the emperor plans to bring more baby boys to the world than baby girls.
So they launch a new law to the population:
"Only boys are allowed to be born."
The punishment to give birth to a baby girl is to be forbidden to have any more babies in the family. Only if they give birth to baby boys they can have more children.
The emperor was very satisfied with the new law.
Now the question: In the long run, what will be the ratio between the men and women in this country, given that the ratio is 1-to-1 without the law?
13 Jun 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasDepends, do people automatically want another child after have one or more boys?
A country values men more than women, so the emperor plans to bring more baby boys to the world than baby girls.
So they launch a new law to the population:
"Only boys are allowed to be born."
The punishment to give birth to a baby girl is to be forbidden to have any more babies in the family. Only if they give birth to baby boys they can have mo ...[text shortened]... tio between the men and women in this country, given that the ratio is 1-to-1 without the law?
13 Jun 10
Originally posted by TheMaster37Does it matter?
Depends, do people automatically want another child after have one or more boys?
The law says only that you cannot have any more children if you give birth to a baby girl. But you might after a baby boy, but you don't have to.
If you want a big family - avoid baby girls. That's a good strategy.
I should also add that there are a very strong moral tabo against finding out with sex an unborn baby has, and any abortion. So you don't know the sex of a fetus until it is born. I don't know if there are any herbs that helps baby boys to be consieved.
13 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnas1-to-1
A country values men more than women, so the emperor plans to bring more baby boys to the world than baby girls.
So they launch a new law to the population:
"Only boys are allowed to be born."
The punishment to give birth to a baby girl is to be forbidden to have any more babies in the family. Only if they give birth to baby boys they can have mo ...[text shortened]... tio between the men and women in this country, given that the ratio is 1-to-1 without the law?
It doesn't matter. (In response to the poster above)
13 Jun 10
Originally posted by PalynkaI've calculated some scenarios as it seems above posters are correct.
1-to-1
It doesn't matter. (In response to the poster above)
Scenario 1: make the largest family possible: 1-1
Scenario 2: max 2 kids: 1-1
Scenario 3: max 3 kids: 1-1
Then I started looking for the obvious explanation:
For the first kid the ratio will be 1-1.
For the second kid, among the people who are allowed to have more the ratio will be 1-1
Same for the third kid and any subsequent kids.
There will be less large families though.
13 Jun 10
Originally posted by TheMaster37Yep. Basically, it really doesn't matter which family is having a baby; every newborn is going to have a 50% chance of being male.
I've calculated some scenarios as it seems above posters are correct.
Scenario 1: make the largest family possible: 1-1
Scenario 2: max 2 kids: 1-1
Scenario 3: max 3 kids: 1-1
Then I started looking for the obvious explanation:
For the first kid the ratio will be 1-1.
For the second kid, among the people who are allowed to have more the ratio ...[text shortened]... 1
Same for the third kid and any subsequent kids.
There will be less large families though.
13 Jun 10
didnt read anybodys post yet but heres my reasoning.
lets theres 100 people. 50 of them have boys so they keep going. the other half has a girl so they stop having babies.
now lets say out of the 50 remaining, 25 have boys. so they keep going...etc.
so its about 50 percent boys. no the law wont really help.
13 Jun 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasTaken as a statistical problem the ratio of births is 50/50 so the law has no effect on the overall ratio (althought the birth rate will reduce to less than 2 per couple and hence the population will decrease)
A country values men more than women, so the emperor plans to bring more baby boys to the world than baby girls.
So they launch a new law to the population:
"Only boys are allowed to be born."
The punishment to give birth to a baby girl is to be forbidden to have any more babies in the family. Only if they give birth to baby boys they can have mo ...[text shortened]... tio between the men and women in this country, given that the ratio is 1-to-1 without the law?
However there are known 'tactics' which change the odds of a boy or a girl. (Position, frequency, time of month) so perhaps the law could produce a population higher in males. (Need more info for problem)
13 Jun 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59If there were, then it should have been stated in the question, innit?
Taken as a statistical problem the ratio of births is 50/50 so the law has no effect on the overall ratio (althought the birth rate will reduce to less than 2 per couple and hence the population will decrease)
[b]However there are known 'tactics' which change the odds of a boy or a girl. (Position, frequency, time of month) so perhaps the law could produce a population higher in males. (Need more info for problem)[/b]
😉
There's always someone trying too hard to sound smart.
13 Jun 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatDoesn't matter if we want to entertain the idea at all. We can discard it too as irrelevant to the spirit of the problem.
I thought that too, but the OP states the ratio was 1:1 prior to the new law.
Suppose that there is a correlation between a couple's "more likely gender of ofspring" and overall fertility. Then those couples who tend to have boys more might be more or less fertile than those who have girls more often, leading to, say a non 1 to 1 differential. As it is it's not 1 to 1 in the details; more boys are born but then they die to equal it out I think.
Then there's the "fact" that I heard somewhere that the mothers of gay men are more fertile...which may or may not be true...
These are the details needed to do in depth research on the topic. It's perfectly reasonable to exclude all this as too nitpicky for the spirit of the problem I suppose.