Originally posted by Palynka No thanks, but hey, have a Valium. I think you need it...
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 as condescending as this?
I just proved mathematically why the proportion stays constant.
Originally posted by PBE6 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]
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 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 PBE6 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.
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 .
Originally posted by ranjan sinha 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 .
The expected family size is irrelevant.
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.