Quote :

"i know i started this thread, but it needs to die"

i dunno.

Study Hall is generally pretty stagnant. this thread is starting to approach "Best Of Study Hall 2007" material.



[Edited on September 20, 2007 at 2:30 AM. Reason : ]

9/20/2007 2:29:50 AM

9/20/2007 3:03:31 PM

what?

its already the second longest SH thread on the first 6 pages.

9/20/2007 4:33:59 PM

i do really credit myself

9/20/2007 4:43:48 PM

as well you should

9/21/2007 3:25:20 AM

99% of statistics are 100% bullshit

in this case, this is not even statistics, per se

this is simply a yes or no question, being that ONLY one child is questioned in kinship, thus, this is a 50/50 question

which thereof means a 50% chance



[Edited on September 21, 2007 at 9:22 AM. Reason : sdfg]

9/21/2007 9:19:58 AM

woo hoo!

another supporter of Joestistics!

9/21/2007 12:27:55 PM

if the answer is not 50% then apparently there is a flaw in the question or it is a trick question, which in itself provides more evidence that statistics is mostly bullshit.

9/21/2007 1:19:48 PM

^apparently you need to read the thread.

9/21/2007 1:24:17 PM

i don't care what this thread says statistics are stupid and useless for the most part.

9/21/2007 1:26:12 PM

Quote :

"i don't care what this thread says statistics are stupid and useless for the most part."

No, but your comment is.

66% is dead accurate. The question isn't asking about the probability of whether someone is a girl or boy, but knowing something about a sample space and being able to develop from it. I guarantee if you went to all houses with 2 children, you would find that if you only kept track of children with two boys or a boy and a girl, you would find 66% of them have a boy and a girl. So in fact statistics is very accurate. Also to say it is useless is one of the most ignorant comments I've ever heard. 2/3 of my statistics professors actually do research in the genetic field. So I'm pretty sure they have a good grasp on measuring genetics.

Furthermore, probability is a branch of mathematics, not statistics. So you should be telling us mathematics is useless (which it isn't).

[Edited on September 21, 2007 at 2:09 PM. Reason : ]

9/21/2007 2:03:35 PM

^nice put. ^^faced

9/21/2007 2:09:20 PM

:yawn:

have it your way. if you can give me practical uses for statistics, that are precise in nature for the most part within itself, i will not say that there are useless. on the other hand, math is very useful, because it is for the most part precise, and it is practically used. for research statistics are practical, but really only serves as a predictor that usually depends on other factors in order to allow itself to give an answer to a problem. thus, making itself the 'i told you so' that really did not 'know' but was 'probably' in the ballpark.

9/21/2007 2:56:25 PM

Quote :

"statistics are stupid and useless"

Quote :

":yawn:"

and yet....



here you are.

9/21/2007 7:54:08 PM

I think that "King" being defined as oldest male child is what is important. The king cannot have an older brother because then the older brother would be the king.

sample space is {KB KG BK GK} where G = girl, B = non-king boy, and K = king

two of three possible only siblings of a king are female.

or maybe I should say "princess" and "prince" to push the point. The error most people in the thread have made is to simplify the problem too much, ie "families with two children" instead of "royal families" -> it's a special case with special circumstances.

9/21/2007 11:33:27 PM

the king does not marry his princess sister. that would be insest ualy hahaha

9/22/2007 1:17:14 AM

yeah, im pretty sure the brother of a king is not a prince.

typically, he's either dead or in the tower prison.

but regardless, hes not a prince

9/22/2007 2:09:33 AM

Quote :

"I think that "King" being defined as oldest male child is what is important."

Quote :

"The error most people in the thread have made is to simplify the problem too much, ie "families with two children" instead of "royal families" -> it's a special case with special circumstances."

QUESTION COULD BE ABOUT ANY FAMILY, DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ROYAL:

Quote :

"sample space is {KB KG BK GK} where G = girl, B = non-king boy, and K = king"

OMFG COMPLETELY FALSE

JESUS DUDE... NO NEED TO REINVENT THE WHEEL, ESP. IF YOU CAN'T MAKE IT ROUND.

BK and KB are the same thing.

YOUR SAMPLE SPACE IS WRONG.

It is GG that is to be crossed out.


One of my earlier posts (or read any others of mine or LimpyNut's):

2/3. Take it from someone who has done this very question before.

Quote :

"you KNOW the king is male. he can have a younger brother, older sister, or younger sister. 2/3."

Or equivalently:

Quote :

"All possible 2 sibling families: BB, BG, GB, GG. GG is eliminated b/c you know you have a boy. So now your possibilities are BB, BG, or GB. 2/3 of those have a G (sister)."

*****************************************************

WHY ARE

SOME

PEOPLE

ASSUMING

FIRST

CHILD

WAS THE

KING ???








IF infact the question is as you are saying it is, then that requires some cultural knowledge, and so, that would then be a bullshit question for a math course, and any prof who gives it would be a bullshit prof.

And that's why I believe the question is about any family... but why does it specifically say King in the question? I don't know.

9/22/2007 10:33:08 AM

anyone care to place odds on new users' answers to the question. The way I see it there are three choices,

a.) 50%
b.) 66.6...%
c.) both

I choose d.) this question is stupid and I don't want to reread this inane thread.

(although I do like the invention of joetistics, I would assume the foundational axiom is that Joe is always right and joetistics will be skewed as to reflect this reality)

[Edited on September 22, 2007 at 12:17 PM. Reason : joetistics]

9/22/2007 12:15:30 PM

Quote :

"I think that "King" being defined as oldest male child is what is important. The king cannot have an older brother because then the older brother would be the king. sample space is {KB KG BK GK} where G = girl, B = non-king boy, and K = king two of three possible only siblings of a king are female. or maybe I should say "princess" and "prince" to push the point. The error most people in the thread have made is to simplify the problem too much, ie "families with two children" instead of "royal families" -> it's a special case with special circumstances."

You're entirely incorrect. It doesn't matter whether or not the king can be the younger of 2 male children. If he can be, then you've just subdivided the BB event into 2 mutually exclusive events, but it doesn't effect the likelihood of a boy having a brother. If not, theprobability is STILL 2/3!

9/23/2007 12:49:21 AM

This is stupid, its 50%

9/23/2007 9:34:30 PM

Ka-Chow!

9/24/2007 12:54:19 AM

i understand this little punit square idea and the 'chance' of it being a sister, but no matter how you slice it, its going to be a brother or a sister, and nothing else. this is called realitistics.

9/24/2007 8:47:27 AM

^ you're right
statisticians like to make up numbers just to mess with us. They do nothing based on the real world.

9/24/2007 9:49:00 AM

^^so if we tell you 17 out of 20 die from taking a certain pill, would you take that pill?

[Edited on September 24, 2007 at 3:30 PM. Reason : fef]

[Edited on September 24, 2007 at 3:31 PM. Reason : kk]

9/24/2007 3:30:08 PM

sure he would... either you die or you dont so HE only has a 50% chance of dying.

I on the other hand have a 17/20 chance of dying, so I would not.

9/24/2007 6:53:10 PM

Exactly also

If the king goes to an all boy's school. What's the probability has room mate is a boy.


50%

9/24/2007 6:57:46 PM

^that's a good analogy for the logic

9/24/2007 10:20:50 PM