/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15028112
>side length equally likely to be more or less than two implies area equally likely between more or less than 8
I knew weinersmith had fallen off, but this is just sad

Well the length grows linearly but the area doesn't

Area varies as the square of the length, duh.

>>15028112
Area should be equally likely to be more or less than four, not eight.

>>15028131
>>15028137
>>15028141
Ok guys we get it. You don't have to keep copying my post >>15028125

>>15028112
[math]<x>^2 \neq <x^2>[/math]
[math]\sigma^2 = <x^2> - <x>^2 = 8 - 4 = 4[/math]
[math]<x> = 2 \pm \sigma = 2[/math]

>>15028112
Well, it's not going to be 0, is it?

Retard, it's the average value for the area between length 0 and 4 : 5.33333333333

>>15028112
The flaw is that it's philosophy and the meta flaw is that this is posted in /sci/. Both statements with their hidden assumptions are separately true, it's just that the assumptions are contradictory. Engineers can solve any philosophical problem but it won't stop philosophers from being loud and obnoxious anyways.

>>15028112
second sentence of the second panel

>>15028895
You are really retarded go kys

>>15028112
>you dont know the distribution of probabilities
>just pull a symmetric distribution out of your ass
>forget that 2 squared = 4
this hurt to read

>>15028112
After he wrote that jewish economics book he fell off completely. SMBC is XKCD but gayer (somehow)

>>15029712
>you dont know the distribution of probabilities
>just pull a symmetric distribution out of your ass
When you don't have any information on a distribution then the uniform distribution is the one with the highest entropy and thus the most appropriate assumption. Doesn't mean it is a good assumption, but it is the best.

>>15029716
Jewish economics book? I also doubt you could be gayer than XKCD. His hate speech comic is peak retardation.

>>15030419
To expand on this: i think what the comic is trying to get at is that when you know nothing of the side length except its boundaries, you model the side length as a uniform distribution with median value 2 and you then expect a median area at 4 with a non-uniform distribution. But if you then try the inverse and try to model the area directly, since all we know of the area is that its boundaries are at 0 and 16 we would expect a median value of 8 and if we take the square root of that to get the side length from that we get a non-uniform distribution where we expect median side length of 2*sqrt(2). The question is then which of these two models is more valid given that we know nothing about the system?

>>15030431
>Jewish economics book?

>>15028112
>two correlated variables
What a gay fucking example, even 1st year calculus students have to deal with this. A much better paradox is:
>I have two kids, one is a girl. What is the probability the other one is a girl?
vs
>I have two kids, the taller one is a girl. What is the probability the other one is a girl?
Sometimes I think coming up with a new comic every day would be a hard job and we should cut them some slack. Then I remember most people have to do actual work lol. Fuck cart*onists other than Watterson, that guy’s all right

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_paradox_(probability)

>>15030486
>I have two kids, one is a girl. What is the probability the other one is a girl?
1/3
>>I have two kids, the taller one is a girl. What is the probability the other one is a girl?
1/2
This is like highschool level shit man.

>>15031069
Can you remind me why specifying that one girl is taller than the other changes the problem?

>>15028112
I grew excited since I thought he was talking about a flaw of mathematics, but it turned out to be nothing.

>>15031281
in a single word: indistinguishability.
In the first case we have child A and child B. All we know is that one is a girl, otherwise they are indistinguishable from each other. Our assignment of the letter A and B are now arbitrary. So it is possible for both children to be a girl while the other one is a boy. this gives us possibilities:
A girl - B girl
A girl - B boy
A boy - B girl

In the second scenario, the two children are of different height. Since there is now additional information that distinguishes one kid from the other our assigments of the letters are no longer arbitrary. we can no longer call both children A or B. We now need to define the taller kid as kid A. In this scenario only kid A can be a girl so we are left with the possibilities:
A girl - B girl
A girl - B boy

>>15030436
Both. Take the average of the two models.

>>15030474
Holy shit. 2016 really gave all these rationalists brain damage didn't it?

>>15031440
>in a single word: indistinguishability.
>In the first case we have child A and child B. All we know is that one is a girl, otherwise they are indistinguishable from each other. Our assignment of the letter A and B are now arbitrary. So it is possible for both children to be a girl while the other one is a boy. this gives us possibilities:
>A girl - B girl
>A girl - B boy
>A boy - B girl
This is extremely low IQ. Two different arrangements of the set don't count as different sets under the wording of the question.

>>15030486
What is the probability that both children are the same height?

>>15028112
>equally probable to be greater or less than 2

Baseless assumption.

>>15031440
There is an 8% chance that a randomly sampled woman will be taller than a randomly sampled man

>>15031492
>What is a power set?

>>15028112
4

>>15028400
The word "between" got newspeak'd

>>15031440
>In the second scenario, the two children are of different height. Since there is now additional information that distinguishes one kid from the other our assigments of the letters are no longer arbitrary. we can no longer call both children A or B. We now need to define the taller kid as kid A. In this scenario only kid A can be a girl so we are left with the possibilities:
>A girl - B girl
>A girl - B boy
No two children are born at exactly the same time, so every conceivable scenario must have children who can be distinguished via more than being girl or boy (ie the "one girl" can either be born 1st or 2nd which is distinguishing information). Thus, the 2nd child is a girl in 1/2 of cases, always, no matter if one is given the distinguishing information or not.

>>15032863
There is no distinguishing information because we are not told whether it is the older child that is a girl or the younger child. Thus we are still in the first scenario.

>>15031492
>Two different arrangements of the set don't count as different sets
It does when it comes to probability calculations.

>>15031446
A decent solution. You are almost guaranteed to be false but the error is on average lower than picking either of the models.

>>15031440
I know this is the “proper” answer but it’s all midwit symbology games to me, barely above word riddles.

>>15031552
Are you accounting for genetics?
The two kids are siblings, so it’s a lot less random than using the whole human sample.

>>15030486
Both are 1/2, because any child being male or female is 50/50. The presence of an already existing child doesn't change the result.

>>15028112
filename

>>15032894
Wrong.
Just like rolling 7 in a row is less likely than rolling the first 7

>>15030486
Someone didn't get touched as a child

>>15032882
Then you do not understand them well enough. I suggest spending more time studying probability theory because the devil is in the details and these types of games occur pretty often in the real world where misinterpreting them can have major consequences in things like science, politics, engineering etc.

>>15030474
>There's no shortage of space or resources! Why... you could fit the entire population of the Earth into the area of the continental United States if it was a single megacity with the population density of Los Angeles!
Imagine the smell.

>>15033514
More like imagine the traffic during rush hour. Truly terrifying.

>>15032868
>It does when it comes to probability calculations.
It's not my fault mathematicians are incurably autistic.

>>15032866
>There is no distinguishing information
Yes there is. Just because we don't know the information does not mean no distinguishing information exists. It always exists and is either one of the two options and both options lead to the 1/2 cases. . Thus logically it is irrelevant we don't know because if we did know it would not change the odds.
I understand the probability space.
Lets say prime denotes being born first so we have:
A girl - B' girl
A girl - B' boy
A boy - B' girl

A' girl - B girl
A' girl - B boy
A' boy - B girl

The girl being born first or second does not matter because each case leads to the 1/2 probability of the 2nd being a girl. You can point out only 1/3rd of cases above lead to girl girl, but a logical contradiction exists if the "answer" is 1/3rd. An answer can't have a logical contradiction, therefore the answer is "right" for the wrong reasons.

>>15031440
About 1/250 births are identical twins, so the probability of two children of the same gender is slightly higher than different genders if we don't know they weren't part of the same pregnancy.

>>15028112
Yeah, if the side is uniformly distributed, the area is not and vice versa. You are choosing conflict or assumptions about distributions and comparing them and finding a contradiction. What a fuckin surprise!

>>15031495
0

>>15033785

>Just because we don't know the information does not mean no distinguishing information exists.
I agree with you, but the question is asked specifically from our own perspective i.e. if someone tells us they have two kids and they tell us at least one of them is a girl then that is all the information we can work with. The goal of probability theory and statistics is to allow us to mathematically make predictions based on incomplete information. I may have worded it poorly when i said 'there is no distinguishing information' it may have been better to say 'we do not have any distinguishing information'.

>Thus logically it is irrelevant we don't know because if we did know it would not change the odds.
Of course it is relevant how much information is known to us. What if somebody told us they had two children and both of them are daughters, what would the probability space look like then? Or would you that knowing that information does not change the odds as well? I am beginning to suspect you may have misinterpreted the original question. The question is not asking what the probability is of a person having another daughter being born given they already have a daughter. That is always 1/2, yes.The question is what is the probability of the person asking us the question having both girls if it is known that at least one of them is a girl.

>You can point out only 1/3rd of cases above lead to girl girl
That is what i would do, yes.
>but a logical contradiction exists if the "answer" is 1/3rd.
How so?
>An answer can't have a logical contradiction
Why not?
>therefore the answer is "right" for the wrong reasons.
The answer is right because it is answering a different question than what i think you are thinking is being asked.

>>15033965
or would you say* that

>>15028112
based retard

>>15033965
>better to say 'we do not have any distinguishing information'.
once we obtain that info which does exist both eventualities lead to the 1/2 chance of girl girl, thus it doesn't matter if we have it. The outcome is predetermined to be 1/2 chance in both cases.
>it is relevant how much information is known to us.
I disagree. If we have an infinite # of families with 2 kids, the parents only know the sex of one kid and it's a girl, and then a 3rd party tells them if the girl was born first/second, they can't all go from 1/3 chance of girl girl to 1/2 chance. That changes the distribution of girls in the set after the fact.
>would you that knowing that information does not change the odds as well?
I would say no logical contradiction exists if you want to say it's 1/1 "odds" or whatever because knowing and not knowing this info both lead to 1/1, whereas knowing and not knowing in the other situation is predetermined to 1/2 but "probabilistically" starts off as 1/3 . But I don't think a probability space or odds applies if the outcome is already known. At any rate knowing birth order of girl girl after being told it's girl girl doesn't change the "odds" of being girl girl so your question is not quite relevant; that's a more direct answer but not useful.
>The question is not asking what the probability is of a person having another daughter being born given
I'm well aware. I only brought up birth order because it's an immutable binary characteristic, whereas height can change.
I actually think in terms of 2 possibly blue or red marbles in a bag where you pull one out and assign probability of the 2nd marbles color... then mentally translate it to girls/boys of parents. For some reason it's easier for me to think of it that way lol.
>How so?
First sentence I wrote in this post predetermines the answer to be 1/2
>Why not?
All answers to any question would be meaningless if logical contradictions are permitted within answers

>>15034813
I think the other person is saying that the question should be read like "If we have a population of families with 2 children, with gender evenly distributed, and remove all families were both children are male, what is the probability that a randomly selected family from the remaining population will have 2 girls?" Read like that it's more obvious that if the original population was 1/4 g-g, 1/4 b-b and 2/4 g-b, removing the b-b would leave 1/3 g-g and 2/3 g-b.

On the other hand, the reading of the question that anon is saying is not correct would be "given a family with 1 girl, what is the probability that their next child will be a girl," which is (assuming even distribution) 1/2, but that's not the question asked since a family that had a boy first would be equally valid in the original context. Actually, your first child example seems to prove the point, when you don't know which gender came first you end up with 2/3 of your remaining possibilities being g-b and 1/3 being g-g.

>>15030474
>by increasing the number of people working we increase gdp! Simple as!

Gosh and the people have the gall to talk about "negative externalities"

>>15035162
>Read like that it's more obvious that if the original population was 1/4 g-g, 1/4 b-b and 2/4 g-b, removing the b-b would leave 1/3 g-g and 2/3 g-b.
I exactly said "You can point out only 1/3rd of cases above lead to girl girl, but a logical contradiction exists if the "answer" is 1/3rd."
And then continued to explain the contradiction

>Actually, your first child example seems to prove the point, when you don't know which gender came first you end up with 2/3 of your remaining possibilities being g-b and 1/3 being g-g.
which contradicts the fact it's predetermined that either outcome (girl born 1st or 2nd) will both lead to the remaining possibilities of 1/2 g-g and 1/2 g-b... if both variations of the information lead to the same outcome then acquiring that information is logically irrelevant. I felt like the infinite families example I gave illustrated this. The infinite set is stagnant by definition but the proportion of girls would change if the parents acquire knowlege. That makes no sense and is clearly a paradox/contradiction. (it's not necessary to be infinite btw I just thought it makes it a simpler illustration if you don't have to think about the numerical size of the set or think about fractions etc)

>>15035758
>And then continued to explain the contradiction
Honestly i have no idea what the contradiction is you are talking about because all you said after your previous sentence was 'An answer can't have a logical contradiction, therefore the answer is "right" for the wrong reasons.'
What exactly is the contradiction you are talking about?

>>15035758
>the fact it's predetermined that either outcome (girl born 1st or 2nd) will both lead to the remaining possibilities of 1/2 g-g and 1/2 g-b
What do you mean by this? How is it pre-determined? In your very own example you give:

A girl - B' girl
A girl - B' boy
A boy - B' girl

A' girl - B girl
A' girl - B boy
A' boy - B girl

With all of these situations having equal probability of occuring we can only conclude that 1/3 scenarios have girl-girl as the outcome. You have never shown why this is contradicted by this pre-determination you are referring to. You just keep saying that it is but never show it. Also what does it mean for a set to be stagnant? I can't find it anywhere on google.

>>15035758
Presumably the families know what kind of children they have, the perspective would be an observer who only knows what the question teller tells them. Consider it this way:
You're told that a population exists of families with between 1 and infinity children, how likely is it that a family in that population has 1 girl? Probably approaching 100%
Now you are told that if you picked a family with other than 2 children, they will be discarded and you pick another. Now what's the probability that the family you finally pick that qualifies has 1 girl? 50%
Now you're told that if you pick a family with 2 boys, it will be discarded and you have to pick again. The chance of exactly 1 girl is now 2/3.

My understanding is that the question is doing this narrowing but more concisely, and it's eliminating the non-matching parts of the population of families before you pick anything but you still end up with a possible population matching the same odds.

>>15035984
>You're told that a population exists of families with between 1 and infinity children, how likely is it that a family in that population has 1 girl? Probably approaching 100%
Sorry, I meant at least one girl

>>15035871
>Honestly i have no idea what the contradiction is you are talking about
>What exactly is the contradiction you are talking about?
First sentence I wrote in this post: >>15034813
I even pointed out that is the contradiction...
>>15035871
>What do you mean by this? How is it pre-determined?
Again, first sentence here >>15034813
>With all of these situations having equal probability of occuring we can only conclude that 1/3 scenarios have girl-girl as the outcome
Those situations include which child is born first. If we provide the birth order knowlege to all families then the odds of the unknown child being a girl is 1/2 no matter if the known girl is born 1st or 2nd (others have agreed with this).... but every family already has a girl.... so 75% of children of families *with at least 1 girl* would be girls once the unknown child was revealed BUT that is invalid: it should be 66% because there's 4 girls and 2 boys in this space:

A girl - B' girl
A girl - B' boy
A boy - B' girl

and 4 vs 2 in this space
A' girl - B girl
A' girl - B boy
A' boy - B girl

There's no space left. We've arrived at a contradiction.

>You have never shown why this is contradicted by this pre-determination you are referring to
I did with the infinite families example in the other post which I thought would be easier to understand, and showed another more roundabout way the contradiction shows up just now
>Also what does it mean for a set to be stagnant? I can't find it anywhere on google
"stagnant" just means unchanging. The number of girls in the set can't change but if every family goes from 1/3 to 1/2 odds of having the 2nd child be a girl merely due to gaining information then the set would have to change the number of girls to match these different odds (ie 75% vs 66%)

>>15035984
>Presumably the families know what kind of children they have, the perspective would be an observer who only knows what the question teller tells them
it works the same way. Like I told other anon I'm imagining marbles in a bag then translate it to kids.
>Probably approaching 100%
It's called "almost surely" in probability theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely
>Now you are told that if you picked a family with other than 2 children, they will be discarded and you pick another. Now what's the probability that the family you finally pick that qualifies has 1 girl? 50%
Now you're told that if you pick a family with 2 boys, it will be discarded and you have to pick again. The chance of exactly 1 girl is now 2/3.
This is a trivial re-explanation of something I clearly understand. Read the other post I just made and get back to me if you want.

>>15032863
>what are siamese twins

>>15036198
>Those situations include which child is born first. If we provide the birth order knowlege to all families then the odds of the unknown child being a girl is 1/2 no matter if the known girl is born 1st or 2nd (others have agreed with this)
I don't think that's what's been agreed to, what's been agreed to is that if we know a girl was born first, or separately we know a girl was born second, those two different populations of families would be 50% likely to have a boy as the other child. As you've pointed out we trivially know that a child was born first and a child was born second, but that doesn't distinguish their gender.

>>15036278
We're not considering trans and otherkin either like the chuds we are.

>>15028112
It turns out that not all distributions are uniform.
What a country!

>>15028112
>>15030474
he has become his own comic kek

>>15037179
incoming autism warning....
>I don't think that's what's been agreed to,
If we provide birth order info it goes to 1/2 and others have agreed. I was merely putting that in context to an entire population.
>what's been agreed to is that if we know a girl was born first, or separately we know a girl was born second, those two different populations of families would be 50% likely to have a boy as the other child
You can call them different populations but that doesn't have any significance since they're all part of an original population. If we have 1 million 2 child families with random distribution of male/female we'd expect roughly 125k of each of below combinations. I'll rearrange what I wrote earlier for clarity (prime denotes first born thats whats rearranged):

known girl is 1st
A' girl - B boy
A boy - B' girl

known girl is 2nd
A girl - B' boy
A' boy - B girl

Family's w/ g-g & known girl can be 1st/2nd
A' girl - B girl
A girl - B' girl

excluded:
A' boy - B boy
A boy - B' boy

in our discussion we exclude b-b of course so we're left with 750k families who all have AT LEAST 1 girl. It was agreed if we reveal order an individual family has 1/2 chance of g g. With 750k families we'd expect 375k g-g s (an incorrect amount)

If we aren't given birth order we'd have:
A girl - B girl
A girl - B boy
A boy - B girl

And still have 750k families with at least 1 girl, each combination should roughly be 250k. It was agreed above each of individual family has 1/3 chance of girl girl if no order is given. With 750k families we'd expect 250 g-g s (the correct amount)

The number of families did not change and these are the same families out of that 1 million population, but the odds for all 750k individual families did change merely by gaining information. It doesn't make sense. Thus I don't see how pointing out there are different sub-populations in the former has significance.

>>15036198
Alright i was writing a lengthy post on why you were wrong until my computer crashed because of a power outage and i raged hard. So please allow me to summarize real quickly by saying you are retarded.

>>15037807
>in our discussion we exclude b-b of course so we're left with 750k families who all have AT LEAST 1 girl. It was agreed if we reveal order an individual family has 1/2 chance of g g. With 750k families we'd expect 375k g-g s (an incorrect amount)
If you reveal order, let's say girl first, there is another quarter of families of boy-girl where boy was born first that have to be excluded. So in your example you'd reduce the population by 250k to 500k, where 250k are g-g and 250k are g-b. If the girl was second it would be the same reduction in population but you'd exclude g-b instead. If the boy was born first you'd exclude g-g and g-b, reducing population by 500k to 250k families none of which meet the 2 girl requirement since they are all b-g.

>>15028112
>we don't know the lengths
>we don't know the probabilities
>that is why we make a wild guess and assume an arbitrary amount
Sounds like a him problem. I just get a fucking ruler and measure that thing and continue with my life.

>>15031446
but there can be infinite perspectives retard

>>15037898
Glad to know your worthless post was deleted as it should be

>>15037930
>If you reveal order, let's say girl first, there is another quarter of families of boy-girl where boy was born first that have to be excluded
They're not excluded because they are still within the 1 million population.

Lets say we have set X and it contains 1 million 2 child families
If I ask one anon "out of X what are the odds of a single family having g-g if that family has a girl who was born first?"
And secretly ask another anon "out of X what are the odds of a single family having g-g if that family has a girl who was born second?"
Both would say 1/2. They don't have to know if I asked another person about the set, its irrelevant.
This covers all cases in the 750k and half will have the known girl born first, half will have the known girl born second.

But of course, once we reveal the distribution of the 2nd child, the families with the known 1st or 2nd born girl can't on average BOTH be 1/2 g-g... because as I pointed out already that means 1/2 of 750k is g-g which is 375k... which is wrong. We expect 250k

The outcome does not align with the probabilities given by the 2 anons.

>So in your example you'd reduce the population by 250k to 500k, where 250k are g-g and 250k are g-b.
I've only been pointing out the contradiction this whole time. I haven't elucidated exactly why the/your approach here leads to 1/2 when one person is asked the question but leads to a contradiction if 2 ppl are asked at same time like above. Possibly because half of that 250k g-g is unavailable because it ends up in the other population?

I challenge you to hypothetically ask two people at the same time the respective questions like I did in reference to 1 million families and see the final distribution you come up with based on *their* answers.

>>15038268
>>15037930

I just wanted to point out what I said yesterday here>>15036198
>so 75% of children of families *with at least 1 girl* would be girls once the unknown child was revealed BUT that is invalid
Mathematically aligns with what I just said now:
>1/2 of 750k is g-g which is 375k... which is wrong
because 75% of 750k is 562.5k girls and 1/2 of 750k being g-g means the remainder is 1/2 girls, so we have a total of 375k + 1/2(375k) = 562.5k girls

My math is consistent even when explaining the contradiction in a way I hadn't yet thought of.

>>15038268
>This covers all cases in the 750k and half will have the known girl born first, half will have the known girl born second.
You've asked two anons separately two different questions. The constraints for the population of families that fulfill either of their questions is separate and the population is different, although g-g of course fulfills both one is constrained to b-g and the other is constrained to g-b. Neither anon has a 750k population, they both have 500k populations. If you constrain both their populations by the other's constraint, they go down to the 250k g-g population. If you relax their population constraints to be a girl born first or a girl born second, they have the 750k population and we're back to the original question.

>But of course, once we reveal the distribution of the 2nd child, the families with the known 1st or 2nd born girl can't on average BOTH be 1/2 g-g... because as I pointed out already that means 1/2 of 750k is g-g which is 375k... which is wrong. We expect 250k
Can you explain reveal the distribution? The distribution is based on distinct constraints on the original population, there's nothing to reveal. Or do you just mean reveal to both people the other's question?

>>15030474
I've read this book (did not pay for it, though). afaik it boils down to three axioms:
a) immigration is immigration, what do you mean illegal immigration?
b) all immigrants increase the GDP
c) GDP good

>>15038330
>Neither anon has a 750k population, they both have 500k populations.
But they are sharing the g-g population. We are just repeating ourselves at this point.
>Can you explain reveal the distribution?
It's just revealing the unknown child for all 750k girl-containing families out of set X. I'm pretty sure you already know what the distribution of boy girl should be.
>The distribution is based on distinct constraints on the original population, there's nothing to reveal.
uh valid probability analysis always has some real world application where the data is revealed to see if the probability analysis was accurate.
If my hypothetical is too autistically confusing to follow I guess answer these 3 questions which I can use the answers to create a much more obvious hypothetical:

If there's 375k 2 child families with the known girl being born FIRST, how many g-g families *total out of just these 375k families* do you expect there will be when I reveal the 2nd child of these families?
If there's 375k 2 child families with the known girl being born SECOND, how many g-g families *total out of just these 375k families* do you expect there will be when I reveal the 2nd child of these families?
and...
*Out of set X* from other post how many g-g families do you expect there will be when I reveal the 2nd child of these families?

I know what you will answer but I want to show we are in agreement first.

>>15038330
>Neither anon has a 750k population, they both have 500k populations.
But they are sharing the g-g population. We are just repeating ourselves at this point.
>Can you explain reveal the distribution?
It's just revealing the unknown child for all 750k girl-containing families out of set X. I'm pretty sure you already know what the distribution of boy girl should be.
>The distribution is based on distinct constraints on the original population, there's nothing to reveal.
uh valid probability analysis always has some real world application where the data is revealed to see if the probability analysis was accurate.
If my hypothetical is too autistically confusing to follow I guess answer these 3 questions which I can use the answers to create a much more obvious hypothetical:

If there's 375k 2 child families with the known girl being born FIRST, how many g-g families *total out of just these 375k families* do you expect there will be when I reveal the 2nd child of these families?
If there's 375k 2 child families with the known girl being born SECOND, how many g-g families *total out of just these 375k families* do you expect there will be when I reveal the 2nd child of these families?
and...
*Out of set X* from other post how many g-g families do you expect there will be when I reveal the 2nd child of these families?

I know what you will answer but I want to show we are in agreement first.

>>15033514
you can fit humanity in a suburb the size of Texas, supposedly

>>15037931
But what if the square is imaginary or even worse, hyperdimensional?

>>15039303
>If there's 375k 2 child families with the known girl being born FIRST, how many g-g families *total out of just these 375k families* do you expect there will be when I reveal the 2nd child of these families?
>If there's 375k 2 child families with the known girl being born SECOND, how many g-g families *total out of just these 375k families* do you expect there will be when I reveal the 2nd child of these families?
>and...
>*Out of set X* from other post how many g-g families do you expect there will be when I reveal the 2nd child of these families?

If I'm understanding what you're saying it would be 375k/2 for both and then 250k. But the original distribution doesn't have 375k families with at least one girl, it has 750k, where 250k of them have both a girl born first and a girl born second.

If you don't mind me asking a different question, can you explain the process you're expecting a person testing either hypothesis would use to pick random families and see what their distribution is? So they start with 1 million families, the family chosen must have at least one girl, how likely is it that the other child is a girl. I want to see if we're doing those steps the same way.

>>15040667
>If I'm understanding what you're saying it would be 375k/2 for both and then 250k. But the original distribution doesn't have 375k families with at least one girl, it has 750k, where 250k of them have both a girl born first and a girl born second.
What I'm trying to head off is that there isn't exactly 125k that have a girl born first and exactly 125k that have a girl born second in the 250k that are g-g, all 250k belong in both groups.

>>15040667
>If I'm understanding what you're saying it would be 375k/2 for both and then 250k.
Yep
>But the original distribution doesn't have 375k families with at least one girl, it has 750k
>where 250k of them have both a girl born first and a girl born second.
Sure.

Here's my hypothetical (bear with me):

I take you to a very large stadium and say
>there's 375k 2 child families in the stadium with at least 1 girl and among all of these families we know their 1st born was a girl (ie known girl was born 1st) how many g-g families do you expect in that group?
You reply
>375k/2 g-g families in that group
Then, in that same stadium I say
>there's also 375k 2 child families in the stadium with at least 1 girl and among all of these families we know their 2nd born was a girl (ie known girl was born 2nd)"
and ask how many g-g families do you expect in that group?
you reply
>375k/2 g-g families in that group

These are actual physically separate groups (I could ask one group to all sit on one side and the other on the other if I wanted).
So you would expect 375k/2 * 2 = 375k total g-g families in the stadium.

Now, I blindfold you and take you to another stadium that looks identical

I say
>This stadium has 1 million randomly selected families, how many g-g families do you expect in the stadium?
You reply
>250k gg families
Now.... I tricked you
It was the same stadium with the same families and you didn't realize it bc the blindfold.

So, you gave two different estimates based on valid information.

This is the contradiction I was talking about the whole time, just explained in a different way that I think should be the easiest to understand out of all my prior attempts.

>>15040667
>If I'm understanding what you're saying it would be 375k/2 for both and then 250k.
Yep
>But the original distribution doesn't have 375k families with at least one girl, it has 750k
>where 250k of them have both a girl born first and a girl born second.
Sure.

Here's my hypothetical (bear with me):

I take you to a very large stadium and say
>there's 375k 2 child families in the stadium with at least 1 girl and among all of these families we know their 1st born was a girl (ie known girl was born 1st). How many g-g families do you expect in that group?
You reply
>375k/2 g-g families in that group
Then, in that same stadium I say
>there's also 375k 2 child families in the stadium with at least 1 girl and among all of these families we know their 2nd born was a girl (ie known girl was born 2nd). How many g-g families do you expect in that group?
you reply
>375k/2 g-g families in that group

These are actual physically separate groups with no overlap (I could ask one group to sit on one side and the other on the other side if I wanted).
So you would expect 375k/2 * 2 = 375k total g-g families in the stadium.

Now, I blindfold you and take you to another stadium that looks identical

I say
>This stadium has 1 million randomly selected families, how many g-g families do you expect in the stadium?
You reply
>250k gg families
Now.... I tricked you
It was the same stadium with the same families and you didn't realize it bc the blindfold.

So, you gave two different estimates based on valid information.

This is the contradiction I was talking about the whole time, just explained in a different way that I think should be the easiest to understand out of all my prior attempts.

>>15040667
>If you don't mind me asking a different question, can you explain the process you're expecting a person testing either hypothesis would use to pick random families and see what their distribution is?
I guess there's many ways to do it. A scientifically accurate way I suppose would be giving every 2 child family in the world a number and use a random number generator to select 1 million families. Then have a 2nd person ask you the questions I just gave in my last hypothetical who already knows the distributions. If your predictions roughly match the distributions then you know you have a valid probability theory method.

>So they start with 1 million families, the family chosen must have at least one girl,
This is a little ambiguous. There's 1 million random families. And then out of that we ask only about families with girls. Not really "choosing" anything. It's just a natural consequence that roughly 750k will have at least 1 girl.

>how likely is it that the other child is a girl. I want to see if we're doing those steps the same way
gg
gb
bg
bb (excluded)
out of above with a girl 1/3rd have a 2nd girl.

>>15038935
I agree that GirlsDoPorn did nothing wrong, but how a higher (((GDP))) help me, Joe Average?

>>15028112
3.999...

>>15030436
bump bump
somebody clear this one for us im curious

>>15028112
Panels two and three can't be the same sample. Whenever probabilities get counter-intuitive the issue is usually some "sleight of hand" in sample selection.

Am I a certified non-midwit now?