Re: Kiddie question
- From: "jmorriss@xxxxxxxxxxx" <jmorriss@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 21 Feb 2007 07:18:58 -0800
On Feb 21, 8:35 am, rich...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Richard Tobin) wrote:
In article <210220070824225871%ed...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
G. A. Edgar <e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
With no time limit, yes. (Each couple has more daughters than sons
eventually.)
I beg to differ...
How can you combine equal probabilities of an event to get an unequal
probability?
With no time limit, "eventually" can be as large as you like (or
need)...
A population with infinite lifetimes and infinite breeding lifetime
that followed the protocol under discussion ( have kids until
girls>boys) would always have a statistically equal number of boys and
girls. The number of families that have g>b and quit would always be
balanced by the families that are behind (possibly <way> behind) and
still trying...
This is like the strategy for winning at a casino: if you're ahead
stop; otherwise bet enough to cover your losses and make a bit more.
It works if you have an unlimited supply of money, but in that case
why would you be gambling?
Again, there would be enough people with an infinite amount of money
trying to get back to even, to match all the players who get ahead and
quit. The casino would have their money in the meantime.
Reality check: Unlike the situation with card counting in Blackjack,
no one ever got banned from a casino for playing your strategy, and
the casinos never claimed that someone had too much money to play the
casino's games...
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Kiddie question
- From: G. A. Edgar
- Re: Kiddie question
- References:
- Kiddie question
- From: Dean
- Re: Kiddie question
- From: G. A. Edgar
- Re: Kiddie question
- From: Richard Tobin
- Kiddie question
- Prev by Date: Re: topology with interesting elastic cord.
- Next by Date: Re: math problem
- Previous by thread: Re: Kiddie question
- Next by thread: Re: Kiddie question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
