2,644 reputation
1020
bio website
location
age
visits member for 5 years
seen Feb 16 '11 at 12:29

emailable at "t.mathoverflow@[Google-email-entity]" for any MO, math.SE, or SE-related correspondence.


Jun
5
awarded  Yearling
Nov
29
awarded  Nice Answer
Nov
10
awarded  Nice Answer
Sep
24
awarded  Autobiographer
Jun
23
awarded  Nice Answer
Jun
5
awarded  Yearling
Jan
12
awarded  Popular Question
Sep
24
awarded  Nice Answer
Aug
11
awarded  Nice Answer
Aug
5
awarded  Nice Answer
Jun
25
awarded  Pundit
Jun
5
awarded  Yearling
Nov
19
awarded  Good Answer
Jun
5
awarded  Yearling
Jan
14
awarded  Necromancer
Jun
6
awarded  Yearling
Apr
16
awarded  Nice Answer
Feb
26
awarded  Good Answer
Jan
4
comment Google question: In a country in which people only want boys
I'm not assuming any specific model, but pointing out that differences between your answer and 1/2 arise from artificial (i.e., gender-asymmetric) conditioning of the problem. Assuming $k$ families as in Zare's model or your present suggestion, is equivalent to assuming "at most $k$ boys in population", or exactly $k$ boys if it is also assumed the families complete their reproduction. No such asymmetric conditioning was part of the Google problem. Your calculations show that a symmetrical distribution can be approximated by asymmetric ones, not that the Google problem is asymmetric.
Jan
4
comment Google question: In a country in which people only want boys
Steven, that is incorrect. The issue is whether the proportion of boys, denoted $f(B,G)$ above, is convex as a function of two variables so that $E[f(B,G)] > f(E[B],E[G]) = 1/2$. It isn't convex, as simple calculations demonstrate. (See the comments on convexity and Jensen's inequality under Douglas Zare's posting). It is convex if you condition on B (i.e., restrict f to lines B=constant), and concave if you condition on G. Such conditioning is foreign to the Google problem and imposed artificially in Doug's model.