Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Toughest Probability Question |
| Date | 2011-12-13 23:34 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <jc8ool$ku5$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <9cb0f967-18d1-410c-9074-f4d84858d9af@u10g2000prl.googlegroups.com><4EE69C7E.12EB@mindspring.com><slrnjedm5u.2as3.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net><h2rde7tob4ibdd18an0opmflg3f4gqf8pk@4ax.com><slrnjee4qh.2irh.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net><jc7kqo$egv$1@dont-email.me> <ln39co8gyw.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org><jc8aef$s10$1@dont-email.me> <lnpqfs6xg3.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
"Keith Thompson" <kst-u@mib.org> wrote in message news:lnpqfs6xg3.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org... > "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> "Keith Thompson" <kst-u@mib.org> wrote in message >>> An annual gathering of the No Two Birthdays Alike club, which has >>> 366 members (and lives up to its name), satisfies the conditions >>> stated in the problem and results in a 0 probability that at least >>> two of them have the same birthday. >> >> That's true. But it doesn't say anything about what kind of people are in >> the room, therefore we can't speculate. > > Agreed. > > And yet you *are* speculating. Specifically, you're speculating > that the birthdays are randomly distributed. I'm not speculating at all. That's why I have to come up with a probability that is not 0% or 100%. The probability can't be 100% unless there are 367 people gathered, as you say, and it cannot be 0% unless you have a group of one person or less. What you're saying is that with a group size of 2 to 366 people, any probability you can come up with (for at least two of the group to share a birthday) is meaningless. But I think that figure does have a practical use. -- bartc
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Toughest Probability Question pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-12-12 19:29 -0500
Re: Toughest Probability Question Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-13 04:46 +0000
Re: Toughest Probability Question Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-12-12 22:19 -0800
Re: Toughest Probability Question Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-13 09:19 +0000
Re: Toughest Probability Question "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-12-13 13:43 +0000
Re: Toughest Probability Question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-12-13 10:27 -0800
Re: Toughest Probability Question "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-12-13 19:52 +0000
Re: Toughest Probability Question Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-13 20:06 +0000
Re: Toughest Probability Question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-12-13 12:14 -0800
Re: Toughest Probability Question "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-12-13 23:34 +0000
Re: Toughest Probability Question Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-14 00:24 +0000
Re: Toughest Probability Question Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-13 19:27 +0000
Re: Toughest Probability Question "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-12-13 23:56 +0000
Re: Toughest Probability Question Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-14 00:24 +0000
Re: Toughest Probability Question "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-12-14 12:12 +0000
Re: Toughest Probability Question Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-14 17:47 +0000
Re: Toughest Probability Question gordonb.qunma@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-12-15 08:22 -0600
Re: Toughest Probability Question Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-15 14:41 -0600
Re: Toughest Probability Question superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2011-12-15 19:14 +0100
Re: Toughest Probability Question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-12-14 13:12 -0800
Re: Toughest Probability Question Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-12-14 21:53 +0000
Re: Toughest Probability Question "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-12-14 22:35 +0000
Re: Toughest Probability Question Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-12-15 09:07 +0000
Re: Toughest Probability Question Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-12-15 02:07 -0800
Re: Toughest Probability Question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-12-15 12:13 -0800
Re: Toughest Probability Question Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-12-15 13:03 -0800
Re: Toughest Probability Question Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-15 21:36 +0000
Re: Toughest Probability Question Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-12-13 16:35 -0800
Re: Toughest Probability Question Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-14 01:20 +0000
Re: Toughest Probability Question Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-12-13 16:44 -0800
Re: Toughest Probability Question Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-14 01:20 +0000
Re: Toughest Probability Question James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-15 02:33 -0800
Re: Toughest Probability Question gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-12-15 05:38 -0800
Re: Toughest Probability Question Thad Smith <ThadSmith@acm.org> - 2011-12-18 23:34 -0700
Re: Toughest Probability Question Bill Reid <hormelfree@gmail.com> - 2011-12-14 07:07 -0800
Re: Toughest Probability Question Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-12-13 06:55 +0000
Re: Toughest Probability Question Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-13 09:19 +0000
Re: Toughest Probability Question pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-12-13 12:15 -0500
Re: Toughest Probability Question pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-12-13 13:20 -0500
Re: Toughest Probability Question Peter Nilsson <airia@acay.com.au> - 2011-12-13 18:15 -0800
Re: Toughest Probability Question pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-12-13 21:52 -0500
csiph-web