Originally posted by PalynkaI get my back up when someone appears to be kicking me while I'm down.
No thanks, but hey, have a Valium. I think you need it...
In case you didn't notice, I posted an admission that my assumption was false, which lead to my incorrect solution. Why would your follow-up post include a statement as condescending as this?
I just proved mathematically why the proportion stays constant.
The logical proof is simple.
1 edit
Originally posted by PBE6I'm sorry if it appeared condescending as it was not my idea. I meant "simple" because it consisted of only one sentence that I believe sums it up.
I get my back up when someone appears to be kicking me while I'm down.
In case you didn't notice, I posted an admission that my assumption was false, which lead to my incorrect solution. Why would your follow-up post include a statement ...[text shortened]... he proportion stays constant.
The logical proof is simple.[/b]
Actually, I only realized it after Dr. Scribbles statement that went something like "banishing people for flipping heads won't do a damn thing to change the probabilities for those who will flip next" (or something like it). So if I hinted that it was easy, I was calling stupid to myself also.
Originally posted by PalynkaNo hard feelings, Palynka.
I'm sorry if it appeared condescending as it was not my idea. I meant "simple" because it consisted of only one sentence that I believe sums it up.
Actually, I only realized it after Dr. Scribbles statement that went something like "banishing people for flipping heads won't do a damn thing to change the probabilities for those who will flip next" (or something like it). So if I hinted that it was easy, I was calling stupid to myself also.
Originally posted by PBE6Take any reasonable or realistic model. The expected family size n, after the Misogynia policy, works out to less than 2. Hence post policy female to male children's ratio 1/(n-1) is going to be greater than 50:50 .
If we bring this problem into the "real world", we get a very surprising result - this policy will affect the ratio of boys to girls, but in the opposite manner to which the government intended!
The above statement is true given the following assumptions:
1. The chance of giving birth to either a boy or a girl is 50%.
2. The number of families is inf ...[text shortened]... ially the government is shooting itself in the face with a policy like this. Lousy misogynists.
Originally posted by ranjan sinhaThe expected family size is irrelevant.
Take any reasonable or realistic model. The expected family size n, after the Misogynia policy, works out to less than 2. Hence post policy female to male children's ratio 1/(n-1) is going to be greater than 50:50 .
It's irrelevant in the same way that, if instead of having children the citizens were flipping coins, the number of coin flips made by any one citizen is irrelevant with respect to calculating the expected ratio of Heads:Tails. This ratio is always 50:50, fully independent of how many tosses each person is expected to make before being kicked out for tossing Heads.
Dr. S