Black Swan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I love this forum, we took a simple math brain > teaser and turned it into a discussion involving: > > 1. The validity of the 50-50 boy-girl assumption > given historically observed biological trends > 2. An embroiled discussion regarding the validity > of the second data set (independent vs dependent > probability) > 3. Decided weighting the data assumptions may be > the way to go (epistimology vs ontology) > 4. And finally concluded that it was inconclusive That’s what happens when you get a bunch of smart, educated, and opinionated people who want to debate for humor, for understanding, and for subtle putdowns.
50%
if you go into a nursery and randomly ask for a baby, you will most likely be arrested
Jesus Christ this is a simple application of Bayes’ Law, the answer is 4/7, can we drop it already?
Not until you address our concerns (especially #3)
^I don’t need to, it has been mathematically proven several times already. You can find whatever way you want to rationalize it but the proof is solid. Sure we can come up with additional assumptions, scenarios, and innuendos that would make this math false, but guess what you don’t need to do this to solve this problem. You are given all the information you need to solve the problem so long as you know introductory probability theory. In my experience people start making excuses for not being able to solve a problem in the GIVEN form only because they don’t know how to solve it. Taken another way if this is given to you on a multiple choice exam you aren’t going to write in assumptions and your assumption based answer, are you? Sure real life complicates things to a point where any math can become useless, but this is a mathematical abstract having nothing to do with the real world so stop making excuses and solve the problem! I’m done with this stupid a$$ thread.
Yeah, I agree. This is a simple probability question. People who think 4/7 is wrong need to get a statistics primer and not obsess about things that are irrelevant to the scenario.
The fact that I don’t consider this a fun question is probably an indicator I would make a poor statistician.
Chill adavydov, we all know you’re the smartest person to grace our presence. But being mathematically proven and real world correct are not the same. I have an MSF, while not math heavy, I’ve had stochastic probability theory classes at the grad level. Yes I have seen all this before. What I was debating with point #3 and what subliminity (a graduate level math student) also touched on, is simply that in some cases (such as sample size of one in a distribution which already contains boys), a real life analysis may cause you to put a weaker weighting on the information.
this fine meta-level of analysis represents an application of reflexivity theory to mathematics, a bijection between answer and question in which the agent attempting to solve the problem projects their inability to do so onto the formulation of the question, thereby breaking down the directional paths between cause and effect, answer and question, and de-objectifying the original problem into a meta-state of self-referential pseudoreality. in short, FAIL sublimity Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ^ yeah, and it may have to do with subjective > concerns as well. > > to get a bit deeper, it is a problem about the > relation between epistemology (what you know, a > statement about your subjective ignorance) and > ontology (what is, a statement about objective > reality). > > there’s a meta level of analysis that needs to be > done, to put the problem into context and to > assign to the problem “meta-” probabilities, about > what the relative weighting, probability, or > importance is of epistemological and ontological > concerns. > > : )
rus1bus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 50% FAIL
mathematical and logical proof is not the same as reality. i am with Black Swan on this one.
Also, there’s a huge difference between: - getting the right answer: this is specified within and highly dependent on an assumed context. sure, your 4/7 may be correctly mathematically, but that’s only one way it is “correct.” - deep understanding: this involves analyzing the various contexts themselves.
Mobius Striptease Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > this fine meta-level of analysis represents an > application of reflexivity theory to mathematics, > a bijection between answer and question in which > the agent attempting to solve the problem projects > their inability to do so onto the formulation of > the question, thereby breaking down the > directional paths between cause and effect, answer > and question, and de-objectifying the original > problem into a meta-state of self-referential > pseudoreality. in short, FAIL > This kind of narrow minded rigidity causes markets to fail. Because pure bred mathematical risk analysis MUST be flawless. Let’s condescendingly question the intelligence of those who look deeper into messy concerns and question the process. The best part of all is that for all your poorly formed snobbery, you have yet to logically refute #3.
Mobius Striptease is so one-sided and usually goes on in an infinite loop. (this is an attempt at a joke) anyways, even if i were the dumbest poster on this forum, that doesn’t imply the points i posted are invalid, especially when he hasn’t addressed them. (i am expecting an ad hominem attack to followup on this post)
Black Swan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mobius Striptease Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > this fine meta-level of analysis represents an > > application of reflexivity theory to > mathematics, > > a bijection between answer and question in > which > > the agent attempting to solve the problem > projects > > their inability to do so onto the formulation > of > > the question, thereby breaking down the > > directional paths between cause and effect, > answer > > and question, and de-objectifying the original > > problem into a meta-state of self-referential > > pseudoreality. in short, FAIL > > > > This kind of narrow minded rigidity causes markets > to fail. Because pure bred mathematical risk > analysis MUST be flawless. Let’s condescendingly > question the intelligence of those who look deeper > into messy concerns and question the process. The > best part of all is that for all your poorly > formed snobbery, you have yet to logically refute > #3. first of all, i wouldn’t call it snobbery but bafoonery that came in response to sublimity’s goofy meta-analysis. discerning such subtle and elusive sarcasm like the one i craftfully knitted in my response to sublimity evades many rational and analytical minds, such as yours. but in all seriousness, you seem to genuinely believe your “analysis” is adding value to that particular problem? the answer is 4/7, period. that’s math, not stock-picking. sublimity is just putting on a little show for the crowds 
Serious question for you guys. I admit I am not statistically inclined. Are we saying 4/7 because we know we have 3 boys + 1 boy would be 4 boys, and since the probability of a boy/girl is 50/50, we can assume we started at 3 boys and 3 girls, hence the 4/7? If this is so (which it probably isn’t), why can’t it be assumed that the 4th boy made it 50/50? And in that case, it would be 4/8, or, 1/2? (3 boys + 4 girls to start) You can ignore this if I am in serious error.
I love MILF’s!!!
even milfs with a baby bump?
MILF Hunter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I love MILF’s!!! Sadly, this is the best comment on this thread to have come in a while.