Is this the current state of the job market?
>>541905308Saturday?
>>54190530875%, next question.
>>54190540225%
>>54190530813/27
>>541905402I thought that too at first but it's actually 65%>t. PhD in Applied Mathematics
>>541905470You’re gonna have to show me why for me to believe it
>>541905499trust the science
>>541905308>On Tuesdayirrelevant information>at least one is a boyso we already have one coin toss out of the waywhich means the question boils down to>what's the probability that the other child is a boywhich would be roughly 50:50
>>541905499You forgot to carry the Wednesday.
>>54190530850%
>>541905308why does it matter
>>541905520>>541905545That seems right
>>54190530865%7 ways for Mr. Smith to have Son & Daughter.13 ways for Mr. Smith to have 2 Sons.20 total possibilities.
Man has two kids. One is a boy. What is the percentage that both of them are boys? aka "What is the chance that one child is a boy?"50%
>>541905565it will be 1/3rd according to faggot mathematicians because they'll tell you that the options are BBBGGBso you have a 1/3rd chance for it to be BBthat's obviously retarded, but most mathematicians engaging in stochastic are pretty retarded and can no longer approach problems in a reasonable manner because they brain-fucked themselves with their fake paradoxes
>>54190530851%. Because that's the percentage of boys at birth.
>>541905545correct.we skip boy one ...whats the chance of gender?let's skip the 8 jewish genders, lets skip the 72 insane people genders ....we have XX or XY ( if we skip all the margins ) means 50%
>>541905308impossible to know.
>>541905545>>541905598that is the wrong answer because it's a set question. it's asking about groups of families, like how many variations of days of the week and genders there could be such as Monday-Boy Tuesday-Boy Monday-Girl Tuesday-Girl etc
>>541905568but there is no correlation between day born and gender. You have failed to parse the question
>>541905624We need to push it down to 40% in order to redress the skewed dating market
>>541905308It's 50% you retards
>>54190530833%
>>541905703bro you have BB or BG or GG so 1/3
we look at this german’s post >>541905652, with his pointless use of ellipsis, the odd spacing in his brackets and bizarre spacing of this post, what is the probability that he is at least above 50 years old?
>>541905732>smartest pole
>>541905710>>541905732this has to be a bait
>>541905732Are you retarded? It's already given that one child is a boy. GG is not an option. >>541905679(you)
>>541905679That makes no sense. It's 50/50. Days of the week are irrelevant.
>>54190530851.2-51.5%
>>541905537Underrated post
Do maths nerds realise how profoundly retarded they are?This question could only ever be 50/50, even if he had seven sons and one uknown gendered child. He either has a daughter or he doesn't.Treating sons and daughters as some kind of mathematically abstract category serves absolutely no purpose.
>BG>GB>BB1/3, that's 33%
>>541905308
>>541905682It says probability, not chance.
>>541905679That's fucking retarded. Please please tell me you don't actually think that and that was some stupid joke?
>>541905308It's literally about filtering out irrelevant info and at first glance doing basic bayesian probability calculation, which naturally i forgot how to do exactly but which boil down to: "Given that the first 50% chance resulted in X, what is the chance that the second 50% chance also results in X?" which obviously is 50% since none of these things affect the chance at all and the former has already concluded.Note: 50% chance for boy versus girl is an assumption that is likely technically incorrect (more boys are born usually) but unless otherwise indicated 50% is more than close enough as an assumption.
>>5419053082 girls or 2 boys or 1 boy 1 girlchance of 2 boys 1 / 3
>>541905605Ah, so the mental gymnastics is Mr. Smith is a Nigger and could have two different women bearing children in close proximity of time. That would make BG a possible outcome. They should have stated the current day though.
>>541905308This anon got it >>541905455It’s 13/27 or about 48%. Basically, knowing one child is specifically a boy born on Tuesday narrows the possible combinations. There are 27 combinations that fit that clue and in 13 of them both children are boys.
>>5419053080he is a cuck
>>541905520See I’m thinking 50% too, but now I’m not sure. Like I’m not sure if it’s like that gameshow problem with the three doors, where theoretically the first part of the problem can be thrown out entirely and the outcome shouldn’t even change, but somehow it does? Idk
>>541905455This is the correct answer, everyone else is retarded.>>541905679This is the reasoning. Probabilities are hard
>>541905605>>541905520This. Those other arguments are schizophrenic hairsplitting niggerbabble akin to philosophy. We already got 1 requirement out of the way. All that remains is the final coinflip, i.e. 50%. This is the only thing that will decide whether we're in the BG or BB case.
>>541905765it's correct according to mathematicians, but stochasticians are retarded so to any normal person their stupid shit seems like bait, because they keep including a past that already happened and is thus not of relevance into their calculations.
>>541905929>>541905948The day is irrelevant. Both of his children could have been born on the same day. The question is asking "What is the percent chance that his other child is a boy?"
>>541905679Yep, so many retards ITT showing themselves.
>>541905772>>541905827>>541905886The classic version of this is 1/3 but this one's answer is 13/27.The classic version does not mention a day but this one does. Each child has 14 types (gender and day of week) and that gives 196 possible combinations of the siblings.Remove all of the 196 that do not have a tuesday boy and you're left with 27 combinations.14 are girl boy and 13 are boy boyso its 13/27. that is the final answer
>>541905308It’s relevant to the job at least. Better than those stupid new age interview questions like>If you could be reborn as a Toy Story character which one would it be? We’d be Buzz Lightyear so you can’t pick that!
>>541906042Shorter version of my answer, stilk correct and bonus points for succinctness.Kudos!
>>541905470Nice try, Mr Magoo
>>5419053082 kids, 4 possibilitiesBBBGGBGG"At least one boy" tells us it's BB, BG, or GB. GG is eliminated. Of these remaining possibilities, the one of interest is BB.It's 33%.
>>541905455i surmised the numerator of 13 right for the combinations of 2 boys.how do you get the denominator of 27?i only figured there were 7 other combos for a boy on Tuesday and a girl born any day of the week. >>541905568
I wouldn't answer this question. So i couldn't be wrongthere is no correct answer and anyone who answers it is wrong.So the correct/not wrong answer is no answer.
>>541906042It matters because “Tuesday boy” is rarer than just boy. Each child has 14 possibilities. Boy or girl across 7 days. There are 27 possible pairs with at least one Tuesday boy. In 13 of those pairs both children are boys. So the probability is 13 out of 27.
>>541906042Yeah this is why the question has a pass rate of roughly 3%Tuesday matters because you condition on the fact that at least one child is a boy born on tuesday.Considering all the possibilities of families under those set conditions, there is a universe of 196 boy/girl and day comparison, and out of those, there's 169 families without a tuesday boy.Once you have this, there's only 27 "families" that are possible. For two boys there's 49 weekday combinations, and 36 would have neither born on tuesday, which makes it 13.13/27>>541906088Anon was faster. The easy version of this problem is you knocking on the door and having the information that the "younger one cries" which yields 1/3
probability ain't fuckin' real. it's whatever the interdimensional beings (demons) who control this plane decide is going to happen - in this case your next child's gender. fate, although disguised as chaotic and random, is actually quite articulated and predetermined before it actually occurs
>>541905308It's 50% because the first boy was already born. This is a double trick question.>what is the chance of having two boys in a row25%>what is the chance of having a boy50%The first child is irrelevant.>At least one is a boy born on Tuesday>"Tuesday is irrelevant"Actually, that entire sentence is irrelevant to the statistical outcome of having a second boy when the first is already a boy.
>>541906148There are 14 possibilities because it's gender AND days of the week. The you need to multiply 14*14 to get all of the possible combinations of the siblings and filter out the ones without a tuesday boy
>For example, say an observer sees Mr. Smith on a walk with just one of his children. If he has two boys then that child must be a boy. But if he has a boy and a girl, that child could have been a girl. So seeing him with a boy eliminates not only the combinations where he has two girls, but also the combinations where he has a son and a daughter and chooses the daughter to walk with.>i.e. that "I have two children and at least one of them is a boy." It must be further assumed that Mr. Smith would always report this fact if it were true, and either remain silent or say he has at least one daughter, for the correct answer to be 1/3 as Gardner apparently originally intended. But under that assumption, if he remains silent or says he has a daughter, there is a 100% probability he has two daughters.I'm inclined to agree with >>541905854
How are you faggots somehow under the delusion that the day affects the outcome at all!?This is why you test your theories with experimentation rather than sinking into theoretical delusions.
i've always disliked probability questions. they gayest, most niggeresque "gotchas" imaginable.
>>541906088>>541906172The "Tuesday" part has nothing to do with the core problem and was added specifically to filter overthinking midwits and you fell for it.
Im losing my mind reading this thread, I should go outside and count some apples on my hand, as god intended.
>>541906260It's asking about probability, so yes, Tuesday does matter because there are only 7 days in a week. Why throw away the question?
>>541905455>>541906172nevermind, the denominator checks outthere is nothing to restrict the boy girl order so it could be either7 permutations of boy born on tuesday then girl born on any day of the weekand 7 permutations of girl born on any day of the week then boy born on tuesdaysorry im retarded
>>541906215But what if it’s like the Monty hall problem or wherever? Where there’s three doors (two with a monkey, one with a car). You select one door. The host then opens a different door containing a monkey, and offers you the chance to switch the door with the one that is still shut or to keep your door.Logically we could erase the entire first part of this problem, and just start at a point where you have one door with a car and one door with a monkey, because no matter what choice you make at the beginning you will end up in that exact scenario by the second part, so the first part shouldn’t be relevant. And yet statistically you have a higher chance of getting the car if you switch doors for some fucking reason. So is that playing in here somehow? Where even if logically the first part shouldn’t affect the ultimate question it still does?Idk, statistics is kinda Jewish to me
>>541905308Any number between 0% and 100%, gender is a fluid property, it does not have a real value until this property is observed, and the value is only valid for that moment of observation. After observation it reverts back to an uncertain value - this is the main difference between gender identity and quantum mechanics, in the latter once a property is observed, it will have a fixed value from that point on, in other words, the collapse of wave function is not reversible.
mr smith has one child born on christmas, what is the probability that his child is a boy?
>>541905840At least, not ONE
I enjoy having a south korean answering this correctly with no elaboration and fucking off, I think it's very representative of the difference in educative systems that he does not need to justify right answers to retards
Man, what I'd be to be a quant trader.... maybe in my next life if I were asian.
>>5419053080.(0)1% because there are infinite genders
>>541906399More like double peen theory
>>541906444true, this question made me feel unwelcome based on immutable characteristics
>>54190530850% now stfu
>>541905308Possibilities:A: boyB: boyA: boyB: girlA: girlB: boySo it's 1/3
>>541905308Is this a way to weed out LBGTS and transformers that get angry that he assumed their gender
>>541906434go back to your half hearted kabbalah schnozzery, pierre
>>541906390You're overthinking it, all the Monty Hall problem is telling you is that your first guess is always worse than your second guess because there are less wrong answers. Obviously 50% is better than 33%, so you ditch your earlier worse guess for the new better guess for a higher chance at winning.It becomes even more obvious if you increase the number of doors. Like there are 100 doors, you pick one, then they open all but one door, it's not a 50/50, it's a 1% chance you were right the first time and a 99% chance switching to the other door is correct.
>>541906431Show me your real flag so I can be accurate in my racism as I make fun of your stupid ass.
>>541906260Because that degree of freedom is mentioned, so your event space needs to include all events that are combinations of all your 4 degrees of freedom:1) gender of child A2) day of birth of child A3) gender of child B4) day of birth of child BThe order of birth isn’t necessary (no reference to age is made) so only need to consider every combination and not every permutation (the labels child A and B are interchangeable)
>>541906390You're arguing semantics if you choose anything but 50%. People not taking words at face value is what causes confusion when it comes to trick questions.>What is the probability that both are boysvs >What is the probability of having two boyssimple as that, two entirely different questions with entirely different answers.
>>541905308I think it's 50% but I understand this is something about probability and dependent vs independent trials which can be counterintuitive
>>541906216Why is it improper to discard that information as irrelevant to the question at hand? It says nothing about the children not being born on the same day, or not sharing the birth day of the week or anything of that sort. They could be fraternal or identical twins as well.
>>541905308This is question for Brahmin. Dalit dogs can’t answer,
>>541905598You'd think these retards would know that straight off the jump
>>541905308If you didn't prompt an AI you've already failed the interview. Not even joking
>>541906545>It becomes even more obvious if you increase the number of doors. Like there are 100 doors, you pick one, then they open all but one door, it's not a 50/50, it's a 1% chance you were right the first time and a 99% chance switching to the other door is correct.Amazing way to intuitively explain the Monty Hall problem.
>>541905520boys and girls aren’t born in equal proportions
>>541905308100% if you abort the girls.That was an easy one.
>>541905308Normal people: 50%Reality: 33%Schizos: 13/27
>>541905455>>54190530813/27 is the correct answer
>>541905308People doing bullshit with the days of the week completely ignored that this is a Monty Hall problem. Without the inclusion of 'Tuesday' the answer is 25%.Option 1: girl girlOption 2: girl boyOption 3: boy girlOption 4: boy boyThe day of the week logically doesn't matter at all. The text says "AT LEAST" one boy was born on a Tuesday -- that means that both could have been. So the Tuesday information shouldn't be included in the mathematics at all.>>541905445This poster is correct. 25%
>>541906693if that happens then you would know they rigged it and you likely got the right one and keep it
>>541906390It has to do with Gambler's Paradox where past results seed the current result. You can start from arbitrary points, but it's still statistically unlikely to say, lose a coin flip 13 times in a row. That 14th flip isn't a 50% chance unless you proclaim that some or all of the 13 coin flips never happened.
>>541905520>>541905537>>541905568>>541905605>>541905624>>541905682>i'm a retardmost (83%) girls are born on a saturday or wednesday
>>541905308>mr smith>whitepolcels btfo. they're trans, so the answer is 0%
>>54190617214 + 14 -1 one combination duplicates where both are born in Tuesday AtueBtue BtueAtueNow may I meet citadel jews and bomb them
>>541905308Isn't it 49%, as it's a 49/51% chance to be born boy or girl, respectfully. And given we know the other is a boy, it should have no bearing. But there's probably some statistical nonsense going on.
If the question stated that precisely one boy (but not two) was born on a Tuesday then 13/27 might be a reasonable answer. But it's still possible that two boys were born on two separate Tuesdays. The day is irrelevant because it provides absolutely no constraints for the second child. You can reframe the question without the information about the day of the week. It's 50%./pol/ really is the most pseud board on this site.
how do we know both children are born?
>>541906490Jeezuz jeffin christGB and BG are the same, so it'sBBBG =/= GB== 50%Tuesday or any other day of the week is a red herring to catch out midwits who skim read the question
>>541906909>Monty Hall problem>50%You are about to get educated in this thread. You are correct about Tuesday, though -- the day does not matter.
This is a glowie thread btwAfter they make these inorganic bot post, they immediately monitor Google and check if you search up this question and you are then on the list easily
>>541905308100%. MY SPERM ONLY LEAVES LAST NAME SURVIVORS.
>>541906753>People doing bullshit with the days of the week completely ignored that this is a Monty Hall problem. Without the inclusion of 'Tuesday' the answer is 25%.>Option 1: girl girl>Option 2: girl boy>Option 3: boy girl>Option 4: boy boyThat is not clear from the information given.The language isn't specific enough to know if we should assume no children, calculate the odds of two boys from that and then update with the fact that one was known to be a boy or if we should calculate the chance of one child being a boy given that the sex of the other child is already known.
>>541906909>97%er reasoning
>>541905402>>541905470wouldn't that be 50%? previous results don't influence the current experiment. You know for sure that one is a boy already. And the other one is a coin flip. You don't treat it as one probability experiment
I apologize for calling anyone retarded, but now explain one thing to me.If 13/27 is really the answer, it seems to me a human made up system (7 days in a week) is literally influencing the gender, what?
>>541905308It's fifty percent because the first son is already a known quantity. Unless...
>>541906974This is not equivalent to the Monty Hall problem. It sounds like you were once tricked by the MH problem and your tiny American mind was blown so incredibly that now you are psychologically incapable of not overthinking very basic questions about statistics.
>>541906982I believe it. I think a lot of slang and memes are pushed here to test their dissemination onto the wider internet for the same reason also.
>>541906198but that's more about statistics knowledge than mathematicswhich I guess is a proper problem for a job interview, but not a math question on a random message board
> ...The answer depends on the procedure by which the information "at least one is a boy" is obtained. If from all families with two children, at least one of whom is a boy, a family is chosen at random, then the answer is 1/3. But there is another procedure that leads to exactly the same statement of the problem. From families with two children, one family is selected at random. If both children are boys, the informant says "at least one is a boy." If both are girls, he says "at least one is a girl." And if both sexes are represented, he picks a child at random and says "at least one is a ...," naming the child picked. When THIS procedure is followed, the probability that both children are of the same sex is clearly 1/2. (This is easy to see because the informant makes a statement in each of the four cases - BB, BG GB, GG - and in half of these cases both children are of the same sex.) It's actually a question about selection of information, because both groups make two assumptions.It matters whether they are selecting (filtering out) families based on a specific criteria, or just making a statement. The initial filter (discarding the families where a girl is picked) intrinsically filters the statement.So someone just walking by and picking a family would have a 50% probability because they didn't filter, someone starting the question at this point where it's after the filter would have a 1/3.Pulled this from plebbit btw, they understand this better than you guys do.
>>541907031previous results are the current experiment
>>541907055Time isn't a human made system, the problem would still stand if you described it by the angle of the sun, what's important is that it's a known restriction in the universe of two children families
>>541905948I don't understand at all why the day matters still, but this reminds me of the Monty Hall problem
>>541906964wrong, and extremely low iq for being so confident. bg and gb are the same outcome but two separate ways to get there and therefore sum to a higher probability for their shared outcome. retard.
>>541905308The sex of your offspring isn't a random selection. There is not enough information to answer
>>541905455What if they were twins?
>>541907103I just do not care for glowies because I live so far away from kikes and fbi cia wont even bother to track down a gookBut in anglo countries.. I think not
all the idiots that say the day doesnt matter, are counting the possibility of boy/boy both born on a wednesday for example, or boy/girl with the boy being born on a monday
>>541907112That's another question, it's absolutely reasonable that people don't know how to do this kind of questions, the worse offenders are the people answering 33% showing that they did indeed have statistics 101, remembered the answer to the first filtering problem and then learned literally nothing else.
>>541906818So, I was right >>541905378 the answer is Saturday.
>>541907196They are both circumcised like you
>>541907069It doesn't specify it's the child that's known to be a son, the question is rather ambiguous.
100%The sentence "at least one is a boy born on Tuesday" is stating that they are both boys, otherwise there would be a comma after boy.
>>541906184Tuesday boy is no rarer than boy born on any other day of the week. There's nothing genetic predisposing you to being born on a specific day of the week
Considering the text doesn't give you any info that correlates the gender of the children and the day of the week they're born, it can't be used as a prior and it's inconsequential. Since one of the kids is already a boy, only the other kid's gender remains unknown, and given we have no more information other than there are only two possible genders, the probability is 50%.Any other answer to this particular question is niggercoping, the 3% is either a lie or a proof of applicants trying to overcomplicate what's being asked and
>>541907158Okay, but lets say the problem is phrased differently, the boy born on the 100th day of the (unknown) year, what now?If I get the idea right, this different information would change the outcome.
>>541907187Hilarious (retarded) cope. Now tell me what is the maximum combination of 2 cards you can be dealt from a 52 card pack. And no, it isn't 52 x 51 idiot...
both boys are raped by epstein and diddy 10 years later.
>>541906088I thought it was 50/50 but reading the actual answer has made me laugh, brilliant question.
>>541906753Those are not all equally likely outcomes. The sex of your born children is not a random selection
>>541907182>I don't understand at all why the day matters still, but this reminds me of the Monty Hall problemSome anon explained the monty hall problem by generalising to 100 doors, what you could do is the same by generalising to two day weeks, only monday and tuesday.Each child could be one of four things Monday Boy, Tuesday Boy, Monday Girl, Tuesday Girl.So you get a space ofTB TBTB MBTB TGTB MGMB TBTG TBMG TBThose are the only possible "worlds" where at least one child is a tuesday boy right ? Making it seven equally likely possibilities.The only ones that have two boys areTB TB, TB MB, MB TBSo 3 out of 7 have two boysA two boy family exists only if Boy 1 is tuesdayBoy 2 is tuesdayor both areI hope this is clearer, having information restricts the space of existing answers
>>541907055These people are so far away from reality that they are just using elements of daily life (like sons/daughters, weekdays, etc) as skinsuits to dress up their autisitc number manipulation.Next time you see a question like this, just change the variable names to gleeble and glorble or whatever the fuck, because it corresponds to reality just the same.
>>541905308H.R be grinding their teeth if you misgender it or dont push for female dominance . 50% chance I am the real father. Ahem.
>>541907031>>541907148Previous results act as a filter>>541907131See here, it's a form of filtering. They START you at the point where at least one is a boy, and that's a filter inherently. They filtered out all the GG families already, that option is not on the table anymore. It's deliberately worded this way.In the natural setting of no filter (them not saying either way if it's a boy or girl) the answer would be 50%, but having a boy acts as a filter and removes GG.The original mathematician also included a way to "balance" it. If the family is truly randomly selected instead of filtering the statement changes in quality, and the probability goes back to 1/2. They have to add in a possibility of GG, which they've removed for the OP example. You aren't dealing with a random family at this point.Basically imagine a coin toss but where you discard all results starting with heads (but still toss two coins), that's filtering a very specific section, HH. You can still have TH, though.
>>541907254You're right, he's a boy on Tuesday and a girl on Wednesday. On Saturday, we select one from the list:http://genderpedia.wikidot.com/
>>541907344I know that 50/50 is wrong, I just hate the outcome so much intuitively that I can never accept the proper answer.
>>541907265Consider the American illiteracy made evident in this post. In one thread the failings of the American education system have been demonstrated in both mathematics and in reading comprehension.
this is depressing, people so confident in their retardarion, no wonder civilization is collapsing
>>541907428Because someone makes a bullshit question with a bullshit answer does not make it 'correct'.
>>541907480Only mutts
>>541907334Okay, now do>maximum unique combinations>Place a bet on the sum of 2 cards drawn from a deck at random
>>541907428The answer is 50% and any answering anything but that feels like discord trannies trying to force a new maymay, hope that's not the case
>>541907428>>541907481It's deliberately made bullshittily and the mathematician who thought it up made it this way, and then made an exception to his rule, explaining that the initial information you're given is already a filter.>>541907404See here, read my posts. It's just explained shittily every single time. You aren't dealing with raw numbers here, they didn't select a random family. All GG possibilities are removed when they gave you that information. It's not chosen at random - it's all about wording here.
>>541905308It doesn't much matter. This is an interview question. So, they are filtering out people who don't know maths.
>>541906555Ta geule, Koulibaly
>>54190530850%. The previous kid has no impact on the second child. It's two independent events.
>>541907481it is not a bullshit question, this is something that appears in databases and population research countless timeswith permutations
>>54190540233%>First,Second>G,G>G,B>B,G>B,B"At least one boy" means you have 3 combination to choose from and only 1 is Boy/Boy pairing, hence 1/3 or 33.333%
>>541905946The Monty Hall problem is easy to understand if you extended it to a 6 million-door case. You pick door A, the probability of success is 1 out of 6m, and the probability that the prize is in the remaining group of 5999999 doors is 5999999/6m, which sounds good, but you can't pick a group as you can only pick 1 door, so this mathematical trivia doesn't matter. So now you're thinking that you should just stick with A. But wait, the host is goat-hating Hitler, and he has enough gas to kill 5999998 goats for some odd reason, but he never looks at door A or the prize in the group of doors that you rejected. He does a goat holocaust (oy bleat, you goat to be kidding me) on the rejected group of doors, leaving only 1 door unopened. So now you have>A = 1/6m>B = 5999999/6mStay or switch?
>>541907158The concept of time being grouped into 7 repeating days definitely is though. Even a year is us arbitrarily marking the continual orbit of the earth around the sun into 365.Your point makes it even less of a relevant variable without you seeming to realise.
>>541907570>Flip a coin>Discard all coin flips starting with heads>This filters out the HH combination, leaving you with only HT, TT, THThat's what they did, a filter is already applied. If you flip and discard no combinations, but just say if it's a boy or girl, this changes things because that removes no possibilities. The number of having HH or TT is 50%, eliminating half of the question changes the results though and skews it.Three of these doors have dragons behind them. OK, I've removed a dragon door. Two of these doors now have dragons behind them.
>>541905840>BG>GBSo, do you have a Boy and a Girl?NO! I have a Girl and a Boy!you're a retard anon, those sets are identical, the order when writing them down does not matter.however, you were double wrong, since you forgot GG>GG>BG/GB>BB1/3 is correct
>>541907697No, you're an adventurer and you have to pick a door. 3 out of 4 doors have dragons and one door has a lusty elf maiden.OK, I've removed one of the dragon doors, still wanna stick with your door?
>>541907808>Older sister>Older brother>These are the sameI thought you people were supposed to be smart.
Lmfao… are quants dumber than actuaries? I always thought quants were smarter but these problems are complete jokes and way easier than even medium difficulty problems found on the first actuarial exam.Also, anyone saying 50% is wrong.This is just a simple Bayes formula problem.Pr(2 Boys | one child is boy) = (probability 2 boys) / probability at least 1 boy.BBBGGBThe answer is 1/3.Anyone saying 50% is a retard. 50% is the probability that the next child is a boy/girl. It’s NOT the probability that both are boys.t. Fully credentialed actuary
I changed my mind. The reason it's 33% and not 50% is because the question is phrased as "at least one boy" rather than "the first boy." I'm sorry to the Americans who I insulted.
>>541905499>>5419070314 baseline probabilitiesBB 1/4GB 1/4BG 1/4GG 1/4at least 1 is a boy:BB 1/3BG 1/3GB 1/3It was on a Tuesday BBBGHence chances of two boys 3/4
>>541907905They're two independent events. The state of the current child has mo impact on the outcomes of the second. You're the same kind of retard that thinks if he's flipped heads on a coin 3x in a row, he's due to get tails next.
>>541907898why would the age matter, are you high?this is the same as having a nickle and a dimeif someone asks you if you have a dime and a nickle, it is correct. it doesnt matter for how long you've had the two, or which one you had first, it's just brainrot to consider that, man.
>>541907786>two coins were already flipped (known prior)>at least one was heads (known prior)>what is the probablity of both coin flips were heads (given what we already know)50%, nothing is discarded, conditions have been presented as known information, those previous events have 100% because they're already known. Only the other flip, the one we don't know about, can be heads or tails and since there's equal chance of both events, the probability is 50%.I don't like this meme, go back to the blackboard and try with something else
>>541905308that's only for god to know sir.
STOP DOING MATH
>>541905308It's actually 48.15%.Only geeks worth that much salary know why. Tuesday is a hint.
>>541907905>Anyone saying 50% is a retard. 50% is the probability that the next child is a boy/girl. It’s NOT the probability that both are boys.That makes absolutely no sense and it stands to reason when you can't grasp that BG and GB are the same precisely because the order is irrelevant.You're the one actually trying to bring sequence into it for no reason.Typical math brained spaz.
>>54190530813/27154 IQ gargantubrain here.
>>541907976No, you fucking American idiot. It doesn't say "the first child was a boy" it says "one or more of the children was a boy" In other wordsMr Smith has two children: possibilities: GG GB BG BBThe first one is a boy:BG BBThe chance of the latter is 50%But this is NOT the questionMr Smith has two children: possibilities: GG GB BG BBAt least one is a boy:GB BG BBThe chance of the latter is 33%This IS the question
>>541905685Honestly it's easier to psyop half the surplus males into putting on a dress and pretending to be a woman and psyop the other half into having gay sex with themWe could also just convince women to get abortions once they find out they're having boys which is not at all far-fetched.
>>541907976The fact that you know that one is a boy shrinks your probability space.The independence ensures that you have a 50% chance to get a boy.You do not understand probability.
>>541908139No, it says you already have a boy. What is the probability that both your children are boys? This is the same as, you flipped a coin and it landed on heads. What is the probability the next flip is tails?The answer is 50%.
>>541908139if you call other idiots based on nuanced semantic reading of one word then I challenge you to prove the other child is born
>>541906184Tuesday born at 11:59pm anon. You fucking retard
>>541905308Thats a lot a money.If this joker guy was so smart he would have us bring a bigger car.>>541905455Now acount that for 51% Chance that boys are born more than girls.For a 3% pass rate the awswer cant be that easy especialy since its self selected already.Accounting for the 51% male birth rate shifts the probability from the theoretical 48.15% (13/27) up to 49.15%.
>>541907983You are an adventurer and you're offered 4 doors to pick from. Your wizard can cast one spell to eliminate a door with a dragon, he zaps a dragon door. and it's now gone.Did he make it safer for you, or is the probability the same because all doors COULD have a dragon behind them?
>>541905308The correct answer is "It's 50%. The question is not well defined enough for it to be a mathematical set problem, even if the person posing the question intended it to be."
>>541908139>GB BGThese two are the same, order is irrelevant unless stated. I know I'm getting memed here but I'm still going so who's the retard here really?
>>541908376you got 4 gachas to pick, one comes pre selected at randomone is an ultra rare waifu, the others are buff dudesyou use the option to eliminate one male gachado you override the pre selection before opening the gacha?
>>541908130BG and GB are not the same thing.If I asked you what is the probability that both are boys without knowing any priors, are you saying the answer is 33%?Your sample space is essentially BB, GG and BG.
ICE raids your 7-room house and captures two illegals. One of them is a nigger they found in your bathroom. Is the other a nigger or a spic?
>>541906490You aren't randomly selecting kids from a fucking bag. There is no configurational sampling. It's 50%
>>541908644Bathroom is irrelevant. Answer is 50%.
>>541908497Correct. The day of the week is irrelevant and so is the known child's sex. As the birth of a different child is a completely independent event. It's a linguistical trick to trap low iq individuals. The question also doesn't ask about the day of the week the other child is born on. It's 50%, assuming an even distribution of boys and girls are born.
>>541908376I have no prior knowledge about what's behind the doors so I couldn't say. I know there's a 50/50 chance of a child whose gender I don't know being a boy though
>>541908139You're using permutations, the question is about combinations.There are three initial possible statesB+B B+G G+Gat least one child is a boy, meaning the remaining valid combinations areB+B G+BThus there's a 50% chance whether the second child is a girl or a boy.
>>541908260>nuanced semantic readingIt's not nuanced>>541908247>No, it says you already have a boyIt says he "has two children," one of whom is a boy. It doesn't say which of the children, older or younger, was that boy. The chance that you get either a boy and then a girl or a girl and then a boy is higher than the chance that you get a boy and then a boy.
>>541908786>There are three initial possible states>B+B B+G G+GIf you phrase it like this then you have to account for the fact that B+G (in either order) is twice as likely as B+B
>>541907949>>541907404have you even had math in highschool? lmao
>>541905308The probability is indeterminate, do you know how many genders there are?
>>541908774You already zapped a dragon door. Does this make it safer for your party? The wizard zap spell only eliminates one dragon door and would not eliminate a safe one, is your party safer now that one dragon door is removed?You have AIDS and one of these 4 vials eliminates AIDS, you drink one and nothing happens. There are now 3 vials left, are these 3 vials more likely or less likely to cure your AIDS?
>>541908796is the other child born?
>>541906964Imagine you have 3 roadsTwo roads lead to the destinationOne road leads off the pathIf you choose randomly, how likely are you to reach the destination? Don't say 50%Just because the results are the same doesn't mean the probability is the same.
>>54190530850%What does the day of the week have to do with gender? Nothing.If it asked if the boy was trans, then it would be null.
~52.5%
66%
>>541905308>Role: Quantitative researcherThe answer is "write a better question for the data you are trying to gather">$650,000Where is this job located, Zimbabwe?
>>541905520>irrelevant information Actually I've read some statistics trivia somewhere that it actually had an impact on the probability of it being a boy although I don't remember the details of it
>>541908872the aids one is the best example so farbest monty hall illustration
>>541905308Has nobody mentioned that the chance of boy birth vs girl birth is not intrinsically an even 50-50 split?
>>541906753Option 1 isn't possible because she has at least one son. The odds both are boys is 50/50 since it's not an ordered option nor is order relevant. One might as well have the question "she's pregnant, what are the odds she's having a boy?"
>>541908870This is actually the correct answer.
>>541905308Ye, third grade combinatorics crap:G or B / 1-7GG 49, only B2 0BG 49, only B2 7GB 49, only B2 7BB 49, only B2 7+7-1 due to double counting = 13so 13/27Financebros are fucking retards, the least competent physicist would trump them at everything except looking good. That is why China is dominating every market now - they are run by scientists and engineers, not by retarded nepobabies.
>>541905402If the other child is a boy = both are boysIf the other child is a girl = both are not boysIt's 50%
>>541908614>BG and GB are not the same thing.How can you not understand that order has nothing to do with this?The boy could be literally one day old and the unknown gendered child could be 40 years old or vice versa, therefore their arrangment in the sequence has nothing to do with it.
>>541908872>You have AIDS and one of these 4 vials eliminates AIDS, you drink one and nothing happens. There are now 3 vials left, are these 3 vials more likely or less likely to cure your AIDS?First experiment I had 25% of being cured of AIDS, after trying one and nothing happening the prior knowledge gets updated and so the probability. Now I have a 33%, better than before, because of the new information I have.In OP's question all info is given right away, there's no updating. And the answer is 50%
>>541909013At least one is a boy. So it's either BB or BG. it's 50% chance.
>>541905455Yeah thats it I remember now>>541908951
>>541909103Or GB so it's 33%
Take a random sample of the population who have 2 children and we get the following.2 boysolder boy, younger girlolder girl, younger boy2 girlsWith this alone the answer would obviously be ⅓, instead at least 1 boy being born on Tuesday adds a layer of complexityTuesday older boy, nonTuesday younger boynonTuesday older boy, Tuesday younger boyTuesday older boy, Tuesday younger boyother 2 boysTuesday boy, younger girlother older boy, younger girlolder girl, younger Tuesday boyother older girl, younger boy2 girlsHowever it becomes much more simple when you exclude samples with no Tuesday boy, now the main problem is the fact the boy is born on Tuesday, which is possible with mental arithmetic in the 60 seconds or so you have left.7 days in a week, 49 combinationsTuesday older boy, nonTuesday younger boy: ¼ * 6/49 nonTuesday older boy, Tuesday younger boy: ¼ * 6/49 Tuesday older boy, Tuesday younger boy: ¼ * 1/49Tuesday boy, younger girl: ¼ * 7/49older girl, younger Tuesday boy: ¼ * 7/49(6 + 6 + 1) / (6 + 6 + 1 + 7+ 7) = 13/27
Let's say the question is: 2 kids, how likely is it to be 1 girl and 1 boy.This is a simpler question. It will reveal people who have no understanding of even the most basic statistics.
>>541909134No bro. One is a boy and one is either a boy or a girl. BG or GB is the same thing, you don't count a boy and a girl twice just because they switched sides.
>>541909007No, it's just a factor. Using the Fausto-Sterling definition, 1.7% of births are intersex. Or course, this includes anything other than a normal xx or xy, not just babies born with mixed genitalia. So Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia are lumped in there too.Any answer not taking this into account is incomplete. You want to earn the $650,000? You need to be smarter than 99.9% of applicants.
>>541909077>There's no updatingThe question is asking if BOTH are boys.Because you know that one is you know they can't both be girls, this eliminated only the girls section.Just like the potion, you know the one you eliminated didn't cure the AIDS. This changes it.ok, how about this, we'll replace boy and girl entirely.There are 2 vials of deadly and safe poison respectively, these are marked GB GG BG BBYou drink GB and you are still alive. Is the next one you drink more dangerous, now that GB is no longer an option?
>>541905308It says one of the children’s gender is known (“At least one is a boy born on Tuesday.”) so no complicated math required, it’s 50%.
>>54190914825% likely.
>>541909135This is why no one takes math seriously, you just make shit up to feel good about yourself
>>541909134That's like saying a man has an apple and also another apple or orange, and making AO and OA different.No! The order is irrelevant!Two boys or one boy and a girl.The sequence does not matter.
>>541905308Humiliation ritual
>>541909253>You want to earn the $650,000? You need to be smarter than 99.9% of applicants.No. You need to be smarter than 97% of applicants.
>>541905308Just give me the job or I will blow your fucking brains out
>>541905308100%
>>541909103You already know that there can't be a scenario where BOTH boys are NOT BOYS born on tuesday 6 a boy is born the rest of the week, and 7 if its a girl (6+7)(6+7) 169 14×14=196 196-169=27.There are 7×7=49 boy boy combinations that are possible of those we remove the combinations where neither is born on tuesday 6×6=36 49-36=13
>>5419090601 girl + 1 boy is more likely than either BB or GG. Therefore, you must count them separately.Otherwise, you’re implying that BB and GG are 1/3 each. If you’re assuming 50% chance of boy or girl, you get 25%, so you run into a contradiction.
>>541907949Why are we counting BG and GB as if they aren't the same thing? Maybe I'm actually retarded tho
>>541905308did you just assume that those "boys" are cis and won't transition, trans-erasing bigot?
>>541909273>GB GG BG BBOrder is irrelevant unless stated so, GB = BG, it's the same event. The possible events are:BBBG/GB (same event)GGGG is discarded because one of the kids is a boy that's a know prior, so we're left with the other two. Since there's an equal chance of the second child (only random event we have, everything else is prior knowledge) begin boy or girl, the answer is 50%. Nothing is updated, we have all the info upfront. It'd be different if they presented like this:>dude has two kids, what is the probability of both of them being boys?>25%>ok but now we know one is for sure, 100%, a boy, what now?>given this new info, 50%But we're already in this second stage, so we're at 50%
It's actually 13/27 if you assume that Mr Smith asked himself whether either boy was born on a Tuesday and then realised that he would volunteer that information. This is related to the fact that if it's BB then there is twice the chance that either boy will have been born on a Tuesday than a single boy having been born on Tuesday if the other child is a girl. AI explained it to me.
>>541909561Refer to the potions>>541909273Because the label is what matters, it doesn't matter that it's GB or BG, they were placeholders for the probability of an event occurring. You drank one and eliminated a probability. The placeholders are still the same, just that one is gone.>>541909633>Order is the same, it's the same eventYou are not living in the real world, you don't switch the labels on the potions. They're glued on and a GB potion is not a BG, this will not change the probability at all.This is all placeholders for probability events, we aren't talking about actual boys or girls here, we're talking about potions.
>>541909387If you want to be really accurate, it doesn't matter what your answer is. The correct way to get this job is to be born Jewish in Boca, important enough to go to the same temple as Ken and Katherine, but not so important you can just get a better gig through daddy nepotism.
>>541905308>one of them is a boyso, case 1:baby #1 is a boy, baby #2 is 50/50;(100+50)/2=75case 2:baby #2 is a boy, baby #1 is 50/50;(50+100)/2=7550/50 between 75 and 75? 0.75*0.75? 0.5625? not sure, am I at least on the right track?
>>54190530850% is the answer, or 49% if you consider that boys are a bit less likely to be born than girls (49% boy, 51% women are normal)at least one is boy, so that remains only one kid.What is the probabily that a baby is born male? 50% (or 49% if you go for global averages)born Tuesday is irrelevant, its a distraction.
>>541909633>BB>BG/GB (same event)>GGNo... if you flip a coin twice then the chance that you get heads and tails or tails and heads is more likely than you getting heads and heads
>>541905679We know is a set question, is a stupid question, the correct answer is burning the whole HR department alive.
>>541905470Half credit because you didn't show your work anon
>>541909527Hey, retard. There is no GG. That's ruled out entirely.>1 girl + 1 boy is more likely than either BBNo, it's not. You have two options since GG is ruled out. BB or BG (the order of the children is irrelevant, so GB is not an essential category).You are complicating the situation by not ruling out the factors stipulated within the question and whilst also adding another factor (sequence of children).
>>541909707>you don't switch the labels on the potions.Yeah I ignored the potions thing because that was obviously cheating. You had 4 different potions when in OP's question is irrelevant the order of the events, so there are no 4 different events. Either both are boys, boy/girl (doesn't matter who's older) or both girls, just three events
>>541906088Is this why the world sucks? It's being managed by people who think this way?
>>541905308i think KI helped me to understandThe probability is 1/3 (approx. 33.3%).By adding the premise "girls are not green," you inextricably link color to gender: being green automatically means being a boy. Thus, your statement "At least one child is green" translates directly into the mathematical condition: "At least one child is a boy."The Breakdown of the 4 Initial CasesPrior to any information, there are 4 equally likely combinations for two children (ordered by birth):Boy / Boy (both can be green)Boy / Girl (first is green, second is not)Girl / Boy (first is not green, second is green)Girl / Girl (neither is green)Applying Your ConditionSince girls can never be green, the statement "At least one child is green" completely eliminates the Girl / Girl option.This leaves exactly 3 equally likely cases:Boy (green) / Boy: The second child is a boy.Boy (green) / Girl: The second child is a girl.Girl / Boy (green): The second child is a girl (from the perspective of the non-green child).In only 1 of these 3 remaining cases is the other child also a boy.The Core TrickHad you said "Child 1 is green," it would specify a concrete child, making the odds for the second one 50%.However, because you specified "at least one" and Green = Boy, you are squarely in the classic Two-Child Paradox: the green child could be the older or the younger one, making the "mixed" category (one boy, one girl) twice as likely as having two boys.
what a shit thread full of retarded pseudoscientists. there are more than 2 genders.
>>541906148Or what reason are GB and BG distinct scenarios
>>541909774You're mentally ill if you cannot understand that is not remotely applicable.
>>541909871I’m saying, if you think BG and GB are the same, you’re essentially saying the probability of having a boy is dependent on the other child, which means each child is not independent.Again, go do the algebra using coins.Keep flipping it and see how many times HT or TH comes up vs HH and TT.
>>541909892or for better understanding - roulette example:for our personal goalpost we only count zero - on the left side - and not zero on the right side of the letter.so the probability of having zero is one in 38 attempts.so the same is with siblings. if gg gb bg bb is possible - then we have 3 possibilities of at least one is a boy - means 1/3
>>541909892There's a simpler way to understand this, remove prior information and break it down into something easy to understand.2 of these shots are deadly poison that kills you instantly, 2 are monster energy.You drink one and you're still alive, are the next two safer or more dangerous?The probability is changed by actions that happened previously. The information they gave you eliminated the option of two girls (pretend girls are deadly poison here), therefore you cannot have two girls. The information given can change things - that is effectively what you drinking a drink and it being safe does, it's just worded differently. That previous safe drink is gone just like the two girls option is gone.
>>541905748go eat a handgranade nigger
>>5419053081/3
It's ok. None of you incels fags are having kids.
>>541910156Bottom LineThe text confuses physical consumption with stochastic information.With the energy drinks, you make the future more dangerous because you physically eliminated one of the safe options. In the two-child problem, the children already exist independently of your inquiry. The piece of information "at least one is a boy" does not mean a boy was "used up"—it simply reveals that the Boy/Girl category had twice as many paths from the very start compared to Boy/Boy.
>>541910058We already have the information that there definitely is at least one boy.Whether that boy is B* or *B is irrelevant information.The possibilities are 2 boys or boy and a girl. Girl and a boy is not a distinct category.Are you insane?
>>5419053081/3 is a probability that 2nd child is a boy (we assume its 50/50 for boy girl)then total probability is 1/3 because first event already happened
>>541905308N/AThe question is too poorly defined to answer with certainty.The children won't know their gender until they are at least 4 years old.
>>541910333A boy and a girl is twice as likely to happen than 2 boys.
>>541910183mmmh - yes?
>>541910310It's amazing this stuff is supposed to be like human speech, it's a much better example than whatever slop it could feed you. The added threat really makes you think.4 potions, 2 are deadly.GGGBBGBBYou drink GG and are alive, you're left withGBBGBBThat's it, no other explanation needed. 2 deadly potions still left, odds of a safe one are 1/3. AI slop still cannot understand basic analogies and is just a token predictor, the option was used up by any understanding of the word besides some retarded ESL-bot trained off predditors.
>>541910391thats a man baby
>>541910057Do these marbles look uniformly distributed to you?
If 13 do 50, and 6 Million were gassed in the showers at Ram Ranch, did OP eat breakfast this morning?
>>541910431so it still is 1/3 :D
>>541906710That's why he said roughly you fucking retard.
>>541905308The answer is 13/27 because you get 90 seconds to come up with it. Most intelligent people would still need some time to calculate all the possibilities but any brain-dead retard could tell you 1/2 or 1/3 in way less than 90 seconds.
>>541910395Two separate births are not equivalent to consecutive coin tosses, cultist retard.
>>541906184Why can't both boys be born on Tuesday? It says at least one is so there the possibility of 2. 14/28 is 50%. It's almost like the first child and day of the week is irrelevant...
>>541910525Yeah except it didn't have the retarded wall of text or poor formatting, you just have to remember that the labels on the bottles are not what give any of this meaning, they're placeholders for an event occurring. The AI text explains it poorly with unnecessary verbiage.
>>541910513yellow
>>541910558
>>541910601go fuckyourself.i am lazy and will not reformat an web answer to please an imbecile.take it or leave it.i can show it to you - but i can not understand it for youboon
>>541907187what does the order matter if we already know one is always a boy, the only remaining scenario is that the other child is a girl or a boy, the order of birth has no bearing on what has already happened?
>>541907646You're ignoring that one boy is born on Tuesday
All of the information in the question is irrelevant except the last sentence.The probability is either 25 or 33 depending if you count BG and GB as 2 different outcomes
Can't believe you can get retards here to believe that the probability of whether someone's child is a boy or a girl changes based on whether I first tell you "their other child was a boy born on Tuesday" or "their other child was a boy born on the 31st day of the year"
>>541905839>1pbtidYou are the retard
>>541906088>each child has 14 types (gender and day of week) and that gives 196 possible combinations of the siblings.>uterus knows what day of the week it islol
>>541910689it is simply the possibility of the scenariowe can have ( without limiting ) 4 casesgb gg bg ggby mentioning one is a boy - we eliminate gg - so we are left withgb bg bb - which is exact 1/3
>>541910558except 1 birth has already been established, at that point the question is only regarding the 2nd coin toss, not both combined.If the question didn't establish that at one is already a boy, then it would've been 33%.
>>541910785as i said here>>541910792the question already establishes 1 having concluded as a boy, so wouldn't that only leave the 2nd coin flip?
>>541910333Why don't we name the kids. Name the boy we I own exists Brian and his siblings either Bob or Greta.If Brian is older then it's a 50/50 whether his younger sibling is Bob or GretaIf Brian is younger than it's a 50/50 if his older sibling is Bob or Greta. Four possibilities, with 2/4 being two boys and 2/4 being 1 boy and 1 girl.It's a 50% chance, stop being retarded.
>>541910499That's completely irrelevant. You get a statistical likelihood from that scenario because of specifically managed variables (standard marbles, same entry point), and we have no way of knowing the likelihood of the man creating one gender over the other, there is no information on that. We have to take BB and BG as two arbitrary categories like apple/apple and apple/orange with no dependence on anything.You people are mentally retarded.
>>541909013No, it is simply crap question: written in such a way "probability" can refer to several different things, which map to different mathematical processes, all having different correct answersThe only thing it proves is the reason we don't normally do math problems using words.
>>541910685I am aware you're lazy and retarded, but my explanation was better. You weren't showing me anything new or understanding it for me, it was a shitty version of what I already had without the necessary information that makes you understand the fundamentals.
>>541910792Ignore the genders.Go grab a coin and keep flipping it. See how many HT or TH you get compared to HH and TT.You’ll see it’s ~50%. Therefore, if you make HT and TH the same in the same space, you must double whatever weight you put on HH.
>>541910829It depends on where we are in the timeline. Did you eat breakfast this morning? Did I?
>>541910973watchu mean cuh, i had breakfast dis mornin'
The trick is that the answer depends entirely on whether the interviewer likes you or not.
>>541910829the possibilities or chances those events occur.you can not have 2 girls by definition - leaves us with 1/3 chance for each. its similar to the 3 boxes issue. lets say we use dices, best value is 12 ( both 6 )- and we start the game when we reach 12.so there is start game - or not start game.the possibility for 12 is not the same as for all ohter numbers ...same for the kids. they can be bb bg or gb - 1/3
>>541911008there's also a chance they fail you for not considering the other 70 genders into the equation
>>541910906bla bla blubbbetter or not better - there are more than one way to explain something - and maybe someone else understood my version better.u're still a boon
>>541910853Yes, this is a good way to understand why it's 33% (if you ignore the part about "Tuesday")You have three options:Brian and GretaGreta and BobBrian and BobThe chance that you have Brian and Bob is 33%
>>541910792The question is not about coins or tossing them or probabilities or anything like that, those are all placeholders for an event happening.>>541910431See here, you look at the placeholders, you see that one (two girls, represented by the label GG, was eliminated), and you're left with the other 3.Now if you drink one of those other 3 potions there's a 1/3rds odds one is a BB.This is what makes it easily understood instantly, the GG (two girls) is already eliminated. Just use a placeholder and whatever word gemantria they use loses all meaning.>>541911054No, mine was instantly understood by everyone and was about half as long. If you use the long shitty way to explain something you're just retarded.
>>541910905People who can't do word problems are midwits.You are confusing your frustration with word problems (which is justified, because you are retarded) with the vague nature of a question that relies entirely on counterfactuals.Probability is bullshit, it's just a guess to use as an aid in making actuarial decisions. If the probability of 4chan having gay sex today is 80% they aren't not faggots just because they were too lazy to leave the house.
>>541911100foobarboon
>>541911057this is by far the best explanation
>>541910853You can break down the names into GG, GB, BG, or BB for simplicity sake and this comes out to be the same thing, btw, makes the whole explanation fit into less space. You could even remove the human element because that lets people argue about bullshit and confuses them, so just say you have 4 rocks with GG, GB, BG, and GG on them and take away the GG rock.
>>541911014i think its combination of probs since we were not told about probability of each event or their relationsp(h)=p(a)*p(b)we had bbgg2 slots to fill with their combinationso if we know a happened then p(b)= 1/3if we would stick to some national statistics it could be conditional probability and answer would be different
>>541910973>Did I?if you had a brother, would he have had breakfast today?
>>541911057best explanation
>>541910950My god, you fucking retard. This is my last post ITT. The sequence of the genders is irrelevant in this example.Therefore the coin flip analogy, would make HT and TH the same thing, to representing the Boy and Girl option.And then TT and HH represents the Boy and Boy option.Can you really not understand that you have no reason to order BG and GB as different when the order is not relevant?AAAAAAAAHHHHH
>>541905308DNEGender is a social construct
>>541905545Nope, it's not eliminating the prior condition, it's including it.So 25%, not 50%.
>>541905308bruh they're doing this old ahh question?
>>541911261you have to get it at least at some time.i had the same issue - with the 3 boxes prob, with the 2nd child prob.the brain instinctly denies is as there is only 2 genders left - BUT the possibility still remains 1/3
>>541910853>Why don't we name the kids.what for?every pregnancy is a separate biological occurrence the uterus doesn't look at previous pregnancies boy or girl is always a 50/50 chance
>>541910590Because it takes 9 months at least from one pregnacy to another. So we have to acount for that. They cant be born on the same Tuesday.Thats a biological impossibility. Unless they are twins. Damn it seems this problem is more complicated than it seems. Kek
>>541910853But the age/order is irrelevant to the question. Whether the girl is older or younger is not in any way of interest. All that matters is that she is a girl. The question provides no reason to distinguish between BG and GB. There might be if these were coloured marbles in a bag, where whichever you take out influences the probability of what the next one will be - but they're not, they're completely isolated independent variables.
>>541909753> am I at least on the right track?no
637/972 ~= 65.53%Per bayes theorem. Expected it to collapse a bit more to a clean answer.
>>54191155542
>>541911014bg and gb is the same gender combo, retard, do continentals really?
>>541905308Insufficient data to provide accurate answer
>>541911610its not bong.1 boy 2 girl1 girl 2 boy1 boy 2 boy1/3
>>541911630i feel sad for you
>>541905929>knowing one child is specifically a boy born on Tuesday narrows the possible combinationsIt absolutely does not.
The probability is always 50% because it doesn't matter what the other kid is and when he was born.If it was a girl born on Monday it would have been the same.This question tests your ability to realise you shouldn't overcomplicate a solution when it's not necessary
Ah I get it now, it's a trick question. There are two obvious different interpretations of the scenario.>1) We took a population sample, filtered it to contain only those families with two children at least one of which was a boy born on a tuesday, then selected Mr. Smith from this group, what are the odds his remaining child is a boy?In this case it's a simple statistical sampling problem asking you what the likely result of repeating the test many times is. >2) We have selected Mr Smith directly, either entirely at random or deliberately according to some unknown criteria, he has two children, one of which is a boy born on a tuesday, what are the odds his remaining child is also a boy?In this case it's a confidence problem asking you to express your degree of knowledge of the situation in a single shot. Then there's additional more complicated potential interpretations like if you start with 1) and then eliminate all families where a boy wasn't born on a tuesday, and then the thing with the comma where it's then ambiguous what happens to families with two boys both born on tuesday.There's probably other even more complicated ways you could argue semantics that account for the really strange answers too. For a simpler example of the difference between 1) and 2) see the difference between>I have selected two coins and put them in my hands, what are the dds one of them is a quarter?vs>I have selected two coins at random from this bag that contains one of each type of coin, what are the odds one is a quarter?
>>541911809The question checks if you paid attention in human reproduction class in middle school if you didn't pay attention, it means you weren't interested in how girls workand that makes you gay simple as
>>541911690You've been filtered by the English language, if you read it properly it explicitly sets the maximum amount of children at 2 and not 3 like you're suggesting.
I've been looking up a bit of it this problem is a fucking mess intentionally lmao.It all genuinely boils down to how fucking semantic you want to get about the question. Appareantly some probabilists argue that the day of the week is relevant to the question, even though the question never explicitly states that it's part of the question. So you could easily filter by day of the week too if you interpret the question as "how big is the chance that both are boys where one is born on a tuesday". it's intentionally ambiguous. at which point I'll just call the person asking the question a nigger for not being specific
>>541911906it is way easier - and the weekday is smokewe have 4 cases orderred for child 1 and 2boy boygirl girlboy girlgirl boythe mention one is a boy eliminates girl girlso the chances are 1/3 for each kidone is a boy - and the chance for the other again is 1/3
>>541912013your reading comprehension is below zero
>>541912018it's meant to replicate a situation in the business world where you need to make a decision based on unclear or even misleading datathe Tuesday is there just to confuse you you're meant to go rely back on basic biology and answer 50/50 because benis and bagina don't know the days of the week
>>541905308>jewish subversion questioni do 360 and walk away without saying shit
>>541912131yea I figured it as a red herring too. With shit like this if it's not explicitly stated I do not count it, that simple. This is what a quick prompt essentially said:>In many probability courses and puzzle collections, the convention is:>Treat every non-trivial detail in the condition as part of the formal conditioning event, unless explicitly marked as irrelevant.>Under that convention, “born on Tuesday” is automatically part of the condition, leading to 13/27. That’s what is called the “textbook” reading.But that's the faggiest anti-semantic bs ever. If you want a specific answer you should ask the specific question
>>541912123you're brown
>>541905308Simple:>known information: one child is a boy>wave function collapased, probability no longer required for that child>second child has a 50-50 shot, assuming no other variables>no other probability needs to be calculated, so it's 50%
>>541912447noone child is a boyout of all chances bb bg gb in the first place it still is 1/3
>>541906267Why do Dunning Krugers get so angry when they are presented with evidence of their own intellectual inferiority?
>>541912596No Kraut, that's incorrect. You are doing ordered pairs and muddying your data. GB vs BG is irrelevant. We know with certainty one is a boy. Therefore we only need to know the other. Which is initially the boy is irrelevant.This is called post-structuralism.
>>541912699ask your people-management-person to let xer use xers pc so you can ask any KI as long you need to understand.i neither have the patience nor the crayons to make it clear to you
>>541912794Be condescending all you like. Your math is wrong, you overcomplicated the problem, and your solution is less effective. The order of the pair is irrelevant, so we focus on the one variable.
this is all just semantic bs>“Oh, you’re telling me about this kid; he’s a boy. What about the other one?” 1/2 is the right answer>“Oh, you’re telling one of the kids is a boy, so what are the odds of 2 being boys?” 1/3 is the right answerthe question is made to be ambiguous, although i'd put my stakes on 1/3 since the question does not mention any ordering, and HR foids love to always take the more complex interpretation to larp as smart
>>541912894You have three options:Brian and GretaGreta and BobBrian and BobThe chance that you have Brian and Bob is 33%
>>541905455It doesn't say anything about both boys being born on Tuesday...
>>541912905correct.what about the other one is 50%chances beeing both boys 33%
>>541912018They're asking you to calculate the probablity with the days of the week. There are actual 1-out-of-7 odds at play. Whether it has bearing on the outcome doesn't matter. This is a problem for all probablity questions, anyone can arbitrarily start the chances calculation at any step of the gamble.
kek at all the browns larping as white with their 33% answer copethere is no room for interpretation, if you paid attention in English class then you'd know there's only two kids in this scenario, you're told one is a boy so the other's gender is 50/50, hence the answer is 50%
>>541912018> They're asking you to calculate the probablity with the days of the week.no, they feed you irrelevant information to confuse you.as you do not have have birth-day of the other child this info can be skipped. the only relevant info are the 3 possible cases:bg gb bb ....
>>541913007No. You have two options: boy or girl. Why? One is a boy; this is known. You are being asked about the aggregate, not the specifics.
>>541913183keep ur mouth shut britbong when people talk.you have a reading comprehension below zero and should get your posting license revoked
>>541913007every pregnancy is a separate event the Fotze doesn't know Tuesday from any other day of the week the Ftoze doesn't care how many kids it shat out to date it doesn't even care who the father is you get a 50/50 boy or girl every time
All these retards saying 1/3. Really telling how many shitskins are posting on /pol/ now. This board is dead
>>541913315You're from Turkey and can't read English
>>541913392> every pregnancy is a separate eventyou almost get it.we are not in pregnancy any longer - we are in "we have 2 kids already" phasefor 2 kids it could be 1 boy 2 girl1 girl 2 boy1 boy 2 boy1 girl 2 girlwith the mention of "one at least is boy"we eliminate 1 boy 2 girl1 girl 2 boy1 boy 2 boyso the chances for each kid WERE 1/3
>>541913401take your meds
>>541913425you sound english, show teeth
It's a trick to get you thinking of the probability of having two boys not knowing what you already have. But you know you have a boy. So the question is only what is the probability of having a boy. You are calculating one pregnancy, not two.
>>541913520>we eliminateyou don't eliminate anything because biology doesn't care about statistics this is not the door and goat experiment with a predetermined thing behind the doors the whole time every pregnancy is 50/50, nothing else matters
>>541913520The state of one child had no impact on the state of the other child. It's 50%. The question is worded to trick your inferior jeet mind into googling and then you get set based answers which you copy and paste here. Low iq shitskin behavior.
>>541913756i thought the 2 kids question is easier do digest than the 3 boxes problem - but obviusly it isn't.let the dust settle - and when the thread reappears in some days - 4chan is know for timewasting bullshit - then maybe you get it this time.
>>541913520>you almost get it.I get that you're retarded.
>>541906732what about the people who say boys are born at 51% and girls at 49%?
>>541913872>Door 1 - Boy>Door 2 - ????Is there a boy or girl behind door number two?You're arguing that the state of door 1 impacts the outcomes of door 2. That's retarded. There's an equal chance for a boy or a girl.
>>541905308Ok Guys .... i have a good dayDiscuss it herehttps://gemini.google.com/appits free and you can talk with geminy until you understand.
>>541913756Yes it matters because if you flip two coins the probability of 1 heads and 1 tails is higher than both heads or both tails. If you can't even wrap your head around this basic premise this question is completely out of your league because the Tuesday element matters too. They aren't telling you that it's just a boy, they are giving you a much lower probability event: boy on a Tuesday.
>>541913956It's 50% if you assume a fair distribution, and 49/51 if you use real world stats.
>>541913996https://gemini.google.com/appask gemini - the newest and most advanted KI from goolag. tell us once u finally understood
>>5419071969999 IQ question, you're hired
>>541914010>yeah dude so the last three flips were heads>therefore I am going to bet it all on tails>there's no way it can be heads again because we already did all the heads flips
>>541914000KEK, it's relying on a LLM trained on public but below average iq information
>>541914010wrong again.we are not flipping coins at random.we have 2 flippings done already, there are 4 possible outcomeshead tailtail tailhead headtail headby saying "but one is head" - we eliminate tail tail - and for each attempt we have a chance of 1/3 - ya ?
