Only boys are allowed to be born.

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?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
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?

Depends, do people automatically want another child after have one or more boys?

Originally posted by TheMaster37
Depends, do people automatically want another child after have one or more boys?

Does it matter?

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.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
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?

1-to-1

It doesn't matter. (In response to the poster above)

Originally posted by Palynka
1-to-1

It doesn't matter. (In response to the poster above)

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 will be 1-1
Same for the third kid and any subsequent kids.

There will be less large families though.

Originally posted by TheMaster37
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.

Yep. Basically, it really doesn't matter which family is having a baby; every newborn is going to have a 50% chance of being male.

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.

I think that TheMaster37 and Banana King have given the right answer *and* given a correct explanation.
Nothing more have to be said here.

Originally posted by Palynka
Yep. Basically, it really doesn't matter which family is having a baby; every newborn is going to have a 50% chance of being male.

Not necessarily true. There may be biological differences between people.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Not necessarily true. There may be biological differences between people.

I thought that too, but the OP states the ratio was 1:1 prior to the new law.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Not necessarily true. There may be biological differences between people.

If there were, then it should have been stated in the question, innit?

😵

There's always someone trying too hard to sound smart.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
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?

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)

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)

Originally posted by wolfgang59
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]

If there were, then it should have been stated in the question, innit?

😉

There's always someone trying too hard to sound smart.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I thought that too, but the OP states the ratio was 1:1 prior to the new law.

Doesn't matter if we want to entertain the idea at all. We can discard it too as irrelevant to the spirit of the problem.

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.

Originally posted by Palynka
Yep. Basically, it really doesn't matter which family is having a baby; every newborn is going to have a 50% chance of being male.

This is an assumption we may or may not be able to make, depending on how the problem is intended.