An ugly hag accosts you on the street and says to you, "I

Half and half laddo. 50/50

>>36171749
4 options: GG, BG, GB, BB, but we know it's not GG, so 1/3.

>>36171842
Holy shit your dumb, you didn't even follow your own logic properly.

1/3?
There are four possibilities (b/b, b/g, g/b, g/g), and one (g/g) is excluded. Only one of the remaining three possibilities is two boys.

>>36171875
Why do you count b/g and g/b as separate?

>>36171875
>>36171842
Dumbasses, you also have to eliminate BG or GB, depending on which letter represents the first child

100%

At least means more than one

>>36171775
This. Either she has two boys, or a boy and a girl

math triggers me im sorry

File: 1490839670758.jpg (17KB, 539x528px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 539x528px

>>36171749
>What is the probability that her other child is a boy

there's only 2 genders, so 50%

>>36171749
You have to be an actual idiot to get this wrong. The gender of her other child is independent of the first so 50%

>>36172080
Wrong. At least one boy means that you can only eliminate the GG possibility (of the four B/G pairs), leaving three possibilities. Therefore, the correct answer is 1/3.

>>36171749
50/50. The options are b/b and b/g. Why is everybody a genius in IQ threads but a brainlet in every other thread? I wonder.

>>36172205
Because they think order matters, these questions are designed to expose autism

>>36172172
Yeah but girl boy boy girl is essentially the same.

>>36171749
I don't give a shit old hag, kill yourself, bum.

>>36172205
They're not thinking about it in the easiest process, genetics.

BB and bb in genomes gives you BB, Bb, or bb in the offspring. In this scenario, it eliminates bb (or gg for boy/girl pairings), leaving a 50/50 split in math terms. In logic terms it's far easier to see, obviously, but if you need a math proof, here it is. This isn't a permutation set up; it's a combination.

>>36172172
No it doesn't you fucking retard. If order doesn't matter then GB and BG are the same thing. If order does matter then either GB or BG must also be eliminated

>>36171968
She didn't tell us which child is a boy, so g/b and b/g are both equally viable

>>36172286
Its 50 % b u d d y.
You can have girl boy girl girl boy boy. No way its girl girl, left with boy girl boy boy

>>36172346
But which child out of 2 is a boy is irrelevant. The order in which they come doesnt matter.

>>36172346
Are you retarded? There's two children. One is a boy. No particular order. It's 50/50. consider it another way; a child has a 50/50 chance of coming out a girl or a boy. child one's gender is determined. child two is either one or the other, thus "50/50"

>>36171749
>Taking a probabilities course in university
>Can't answer this
Why the fuck did they teach me sigma algebras and measure theory, fuck

>>36172409

Maybe they figured it would just be common sense.

Just because you've already had a boy or girl, doesn't meant the chance of getting another is affected in any way.

>>36172346
In that case then they are the same thing you dumb brainlet

>>36171749
The best part about this question.
Is that it's completely irrelevant to us here since having children implies actually having social skills for a woman in the first place. So why would we give a rats ass about some old hag having children.

>>36172409
something something quadratic variation something something

File: 4412.png (54KB, 957x1542px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 957x1542px

its 1/3, I ran into a similar problem on pol with coins (I flip two coins, at least one of them will be heads, what is the chance they are both heads) so I simulated it and its 1/3. The program flips two coins 1000 times and ignores filps that are both tails, after 1000 flips it shows the percentage of both heads.

>>36171984

>At least means more than one

No it doesn't. Are you trolling?

>>>/sci/
Original post

>>36172452
You dont only lack social skills youre also incredibly stupid

Generate 100 hags with 2 random children. 25 will be both boys, 25 both girls, 50 mixed.

Our hag has at least one so she's one of 75 possibilities. 25 of these have another boy.

25/75 = 1 in 3

>>36172501
Says the guy who can't even type "you're" properly. You should try fixing your english before attempting to insult others.

>>36172492
autism. you only need to flip one coin because there is one child with an undetermined gender. You don't need to flip 2 because the first child's gender is already determined.
You overthought it.

>>36171749
Nothing proves female privilege more then that some dude decided to fuck this old hag twice but a slightly below average male like elliot is doomed to virginity

File: 1491861961239.jpg (38KB, 403x433px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 403x433px

>>36172494
N-no... but I realize I thought of a couple

>>36172533
>dubs wasted on "le grammar" non argument

Fucking idiots not taking into account that if child 1 of 2 is boy then you HAVE to set one of the two letters as B, it doesn't matter if you "don't feel like it"

>4 options
GG
BB
BG
GB
>at least one of them is a boy, rules of GG
BB
BG
GB
>what are the odds that the other child is a boy (i.e. neither child is a girl)
1/3

anyone getting 50% is getting it wrong because they are thinking the order of the kids matters.

>>36172492
Flipping 2 coins at once without knowing what the first one is, is not the same as already knowing the outcome of one. If its first heads then tails or tails then heads it doesnt matter.

>>36172533
Apostrophes in a digital text outside of a official one is for women.
Also if you use grammar as an argument you should kill your self honestly.

>>36172567
2 options.

BB
BG

BG and GB are the same.

>>36172567
>anyone getting 1/3 is getting it wrong because they are thinking the order of the kids matters.
Ftfy

>>36172550
autism. refer to
>>36172567

>>36172578
>If its first heads then tails or tails then heads it doesnt matter
which is why its 1/3

>>36172615
I got my explanation backwards but 1/3 is still right

>>36171749
I dunno the number but I'm pretty sure there's a higher chance of the second child being a girl because the probability of a girl being born is higher then a boy

Or am I dumb

>>36172626
refer to >>36172611

BG and GB are the same. either way, one child is a boy and one isn't.

>>36172626
Wait how does that make sense.
If it doesnt matter which one is first or 2nd, the option boy girl and girl boy, are the same.

>>36172578
>Oh look I have to tell people to kill myself cause I have literally no better way to combat his points.
Just keep proving that stupidity for me.
Have a (you).

>>36171842
I like this sort of fuckery.
Now how about you confirm it with statistical evidence?

Proper answer to the question:

The answer is unknown because of inadequate definitions in the question. Are we to simply assume that the odds of having a boy is *exactly* 50.000%, no more or less? Are we to assume that there are no intersex outcomes? Is the hag considering these issues in terms of sex or gender (they're different)? Most importantly, how do we even know she's telling the truth?

You're going to need to give me a lot more info, OP.

>>36172742
>>36172492 already did this for me.

>>36171842
>What is the probability that her other child is a boy as well?
This is the key part of the question here.
It doesn't ask the order only what the other child is which means it is 50/50

>>36172627
Only if you're autistic, the question says nothing about the order the children were born in so it does not matter and for all non autist people BG and GB are the same, leaving you with a 50/50 outcome to the original question

>>36172684
What point do i have to even combat? You made no points, you use grammar as an argument which clearly means you have no brain. I simply resorted to the same thing youre doing, for doing anything else is futile.
Either way im not going to talk to you anymore. Stay deluded

It's 1/3

The reason is somewhat philosophical.

Shitting out a boy and then shitting out a girl is NOT the same event as shitting out a girl and afterwards shitting out a boy.

They are two separately but possible events so you need to count them separately.

I've got a Ph.D in this shit. Trust me.

>>36172790
>Insulting means you literally lose any and all arguments by default.
Well played proving you have nothing useful to say, keep thinking you have actually won.

>>36171842
it is only asking for the undetermined child. there are 2 options G, B

>>36172825
explain how they are not the same event without bringing in anything outside the question.

>>36172825
No you don't since the question merely asks
"What is the probability that her other child is a boy as well?"
Says nothing about the order of it just the chance of it being a boy.

>>36172854

Because the order matters.

Because if you were the younger brother to your older sister it would be an entirely different reality to this one where you are the older brother to your younger sister.

>>36172854
Calculate the probability of having at least one boy (0.75). Then we have

P(Two Boys | One Boy) = P(Two Boys) / P(One Boy) = 0.25 / 0.75 = 1/3

Depends on intonation of "at least"
She could say it in a fashion that implies she's thankful, if so than the other child must be a girl.
If she said the whole thing flatly, like a retard or a robot it's 50%

>>36172893
Except it doesn't since the question literally doesn't ask the order just the chance of having a boy.

>>36172825
Yes, it is 1/3, but only ASSUMING that there are precisely 50/50 odds of having a boy versus girl. And that we are basing these determinations from sex, which for the purposes of your solution must be binary.

That's a lot of assumptions, bro. The problem says nothing about any of that.

>>36172893
What the fuck are you talking about? The order doesn't matter.

>>36172902
We already know the gender of the first child, he should be removed from the question of the other child's probability.

>>36172902

Yeah you can also use Bayes Theorem but it's important to know the reason behind things instead of just applying known math to get the result.

>>36172902
Wrong, the probability of having a boy doesn't matter to the question since having a boy is already a set event, the only event being calculated is did the old hag have a boy or girl in an unrelated birth, the wording of the question matters
It's not like the gold and silver balls in a box question

>>36172973
I have to ask but are people that autistic to actually believe it is 1/3?

>>36172988
Is this thread not proof enough of that? And somehow despite this rigid autism they misread the question and the parameters it lays out

>>36173035
Fair point there.
We should give them notes, read the question properly it explains more than enough.

>>36172825
In that case then you have to choose one to represent the first the first child. Math doesn't change because you refuse to consider this.

Here's a nice video explaining why the answer is 1/3 and a lot of you are idiots https://youtu.be/cpwSGsb-rTs

Fucking idiots, you can't just decide that GB and BG can coexist because makes you look "le sooooper clever XD", you HAVE to set either the first or second letter as being the first child, otherwise your letters don't represent anything and are irrelevant to the question.

>>36173266
>somebody else agrees with me therefore I'm right
There aren't three sexes and the sex of the first child is irrelevant. It either B or G, the first child is already known and isn't factored

>>36173281
Pretty sure its just the difference between people thinking about an actual dude with a child hiding somewhere and a math test

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox#Variants_of_the_question

>>36172825
No, because in both GB and BG mean the same thing, the first child is a boy and the second is a girl, since we already know the first child is a boy therefore the G MUST be the second child who's sex was not determined. GB and BG are the same thing

>>36173309
>>somebody else agrees with me therefore I'm right
>There aren't three sexes and the sex of the first child is irrelevant. It either B or G, the first child is already known and isn't factored
The first child isn't known. The first OR the second child is known

Idiots in this thread are answering the question "what is the probability that they are both boys assuming they aren't both girls" not OP's question

There is actually some ambiguity in the question itself.

It is 1/3 or 1/2 depending on how "At least one of them is a boy" was determined.

If the ugly hag told you that herself then the answer would be 1/3. Because either her oldest or youngest is a boy and those are two separate realities.

If however you upon the "At least one of them is a boy" by random chance, for example by spotting one of the children and it happens to me a boy, then the answer is 1/2. Why? Because in the case where the family has 2 male kids, it is more probably that you will happen upon one of their kids and it will be male.

This is gamblers fallacy

>>36173505
They are asking for what sex the other child is male or female nothing else. How is this so hard for people to understand.

>>36173417
Which was born first is irrelevant to the question, by first I meant already determined. BG and GB both mean the same thing, the determined child is a boy(obviously) and the other is a girl. BG is the same as GB

>>36173524

>I'm to much of a brainlet to understand the philosophical subtleties of the question

Lol, give up already. This shit is not for you.

>>36173505
schroedinger's autism.

The hag never mentioned the boy was the oldest or youngest. The order of the children has no bearing on the question.

>>36173548
They aren't even asking the order of the children so it's irrelevant to the question.
I ain't as deluded as you are to make up a question that literally doesn't exist.

There are four possibilities

BB
BG
GB
GG

The order DOES matter. GB is not the same as BG because clearly one is older than the other.

The question is of a philosophical nature. It depends on how you get the second piece of information. How do you get to know, "At least one of them is a boy"?

If the family just moved in your neighbourhood and you encounter one of the kids and it is a male then it could be either:
BB and you encounter the oldest
BB and you encounter the youngest
GB
BG
so in that case the probability is 1/2

If however she just tells you, hey, "one of my children is a boy". In this case you have
GB, BG, and there is no distinction between BB and BB because she doesn't make one so in that case it is 1/3.

I'm sorry I cannot make it simpler than that.

>>36173580

You are literally too stupid to understand, sorry.

Look:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox#Analysis_of_the_ambiguity

It's not as simple as you think

To anybody mentioning which child came first: what if they're twins? It doesn't matter in the slightest.

>>36173661
Why are all the wrongfags bringing up the children's age? it is 100% IRRELEVANT to the question.

ITT: brainlets
literally how can any of you think this isnt 50% are you guys fucking retarded

>>36173708
All the points they are bringing up are irrelevant to the question since the only thing they asked for is the chance "a male would be born".

>>36173544
>Which was born first is irrelevant to the question, by first I meant already determined. BG and GB both mean the same thing, the determined child is a boy(obviously) and the other is a girl. BG is the same as GB
It's perfectly valid to think like that, but it doesn't change the answer. You start with 3 possibilities, BB, GG and BG. BB has 25% chance, GG has 25% chance and BG has 50% chance. What the hag tells you eliminates GG, which leaves you with 33% chance of BB and 66% chance of BG

>>36173715
Yeah I am pretty sure they are.

>>36173738
Except they aren't asking if it will be BB or BG they are asking if it will be a boy and that is it.
There is only 2 sexes so it can only be 1 of the other.

>>36172376
Each event has to be considered as a unique event. You need to know not only what the value you're trying to measure of an event is, but which event it is, because you're trying to determine a specific value of events (gender) that are not the same as each other with respect to all possible values that you could be measuring about those events, because otherwise they would be the same event and you would only have one event to measure. This difference could be anything. They could be twins who were born at the exact same time, in which case you could differentiate between them by which is on the left or right. If all other variables are identical, having a boy on the left and a girl on the right is a different event than having a girl on the left and a boy on the right, though they both have the same value (1 boy 1 girl). They could occupy the same place in time and space but have different hair colors, they could occupy the same place in space and time but exist in parallel universes, it doesn't matter. Something is different about them.

I'll grant you that believing that there even is a chronological order is an assumption, but you don't have to make any assumptions because the hag clearly states that her two children are two events that are separated by a difference in at least one mystery value. You don't have to know which value that is, you just have to know that a disparity exists somewhere so that you know you're dealing with two events and not one.

b/g and g/b both have the same "gender value" (one boy and one girl), but they are not the same event. You can't claim that they are the same thing in their entirety only because they are the same thing with respect to their gender value. Child 1 and child 2 differ in some other respect, because they are two separate children, whether they're separated by place in time or space or something else, not one, so b/g and g/b as a composite of child 1 and child 2 must also be different.

>>36173715

Maybe take Probability Theory next semester then, faggot. See how well you do since you're clearly a genius.

>>36173661
The question doesn't make mention of "first" or "second" brainlet. The set "GB" and "BG" represent the same information, the "other one" is a girl (because the one mentioned as being a boy has to be B) therefore BG is the same thing as GB and is not considered a seperate option. They represent the same outcome but just written in a different order

File: Screenshot_2017-04-04-15-17-32.png (2MB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1440x2560px

>>36172909
Woah. This is correct.

>>36173774
>Except they aren't asking if it will be BB or BG they are asking if it will be a boy and that is it.
>There is only 2 sexes so it can only be 1 of the other.
No, she is asking if it is BB

>>36173715
uhhhhhhhhhhhh do you think there are only two genders???

>>36173798

There is no such thing as "the other one" reality, retard.

Thinks about it this way. You are a programmer and you have to program this universe. Can you fully program this universe out of the information, "the other one"? No you cannot. You have to know whether "the other one" is the oldest or youngest.

You are computing a probability for a mythical universe that doesn't exist.

Fucking brainlets.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>36173829
Well you got what I meant which was not GB or BG. But thanks for correcting me fellow anon.

File: 5_0.png (523KB, 500x486px) Image search: [Google]

523KB, 500x486px

>>36171749
Maybe she's lying famalam, idk

>>36173798
They have the same value but they're not the same. You know that one child is different from the other because there are two children and not one. They actually don't represent the same information, you just don't know what's different about them, only that they are different.

This is Dunninger-Kruger in full effect. The retards cannot even understand how retarded they are.

They will probably even agree with this post and think that we are the retards instead of them.

We covered this in class.

The answer is 1/3. The question was malformed, removing the ambiguity. With the ambiguity in the original question, it could be either 1/2 and 1/3, making this discussion legit. But OP fucked up the question. As it is the answer is unambiguously 1/3.

The answer is rather simple. Consider this.

HOW THERE YOU ASSUME THE KID'S GENDER YOU CIS SCUM

>>36173903
How was the ambiguity removed? this question is very ambiguous.

>>36172492
that proves it.

>>36171749

The male to female birth ratio is 105:100

So the chance she has 2 boys is 105/205 or 21/41

>>36173848
No you don't, how the fuck is "oldest and youngest" relevant to a question that makes no mention of either of those, it doesn't even say "first" or "second" just "other". Whether or not "other" is programmable or not doesn't change the fact that the question says "other"

>>36174024
It isn't, but there is something different about them, otherwise you'd be dealing with one child and not two. The fact that they're different is explicit despite the fact that we don't know how they're different.

>>36173899
No they are the same because we are only concerned with the gender of the other one and they both give the situation "the other one is a girl" inherently because we know that the one mentioned( not the "other" ) MUST be the boy, they cannot be the girl and this BG and GB convey the same information

>>36174062
The fact that they're different is irrelevan. We are literally only concerned with the if the "other" is a boy or a girl. People ITT are making the mistake where they think its just "if they aren't both girls then what is the chance they are both boys" but that's not the question. We KNOW that the one(not the "other") is a boy. So his sex is irrelevant to the question of the "other"'s sex

>>36174081
Thus* not this
Apparently that wasn't original

Isn't it impossible to say? There's no reason why boy and girl should be equally likely, besides the fact that the ratio of boys and girls in the world is roughly 50-50. The hag might have kidnapped (it's never explained where she got these children) two boys for the hell of it, or a boy and a girl. Who can say how she got these children and how likely it is for her to get a specific gender?

>>36174081
We are not only concerned with gender because we are also concerned with the fact that the two are somehow "others", or different from one another.

BG is actually X set of data with a gender value of B and Y set of data with a gender value of G, while GB is X set of data with a gender value of G and Y set of data with a gender value of B. X and Y are identical in both BG and GB, but X "combined" with B or G is different from Y "combined" with B or G. Ordering them is a way to represent this difference. They both have the same gender value, but they are not completely the same.

If there can be both BG and GB then there should be two BBs

>>36174172
>The fact that they're different is irrelevant
>We are literally only concerned with the if the "other" is a boy or a girl
You need to know that they're different in order to know that there even is an other. You actually contradicted yourself.

>>36174293
No because B has to represent the same person in both situations

>>36173944

It was removed because the woman tell you herself that statement. There is no ambiguity in this case. Just wrong math.

>>36174323
No because the one we know is a boy isn't relevant to the question.

>>36174330
No it doesn't. Either child can be B.

>>36172988
>>36173035
You are dumb as hell and understand nothing of probability. Kill yourselves

>>36174336
...The woman telling you herself doesn't change it. All you know now is that she has 2 children instead of one and an unknown variable of other children.

>>36174379
>>36174379
No the "atleast one of them" is the boy in both situations, the other can't be boy because then the "at least one of them" must be the girl, but we already know from the question that the "at least one (not the other)" is a boy

>>36174379
No he's right, if BG and GB are valid there does need to be 2 instances of BB since she never specifies whether it's her eldest or youngest child that is a boy, she could be referring to B the eldest or b the youngest
This holds true and is how you get a 1/3 answer in the gold and silver ball question as well

>brainlets didn't realize he worded the trick question wrong
Lol

>>36174424

Yes it does. The probability that she would have told you that statement if she had BG or GB is the same as the probability of her telling you that statement if she had BB.

However if you discovered that statement by other means it could be that there could be a distinction in the probabilities of getting that statement in case of BB vs GB or BG.

>>36173715
You are literally too stupid to realize how stupid you actually are. Kill youself

>>36174478
This isn't like the gold and silver ball question. one of her children is determined to be a boy already. exclude him from your equation.

>>36174475
"At least one of them is a child" isn't a trait the defines either specific child. We only know that it defines a child but not which.

>>36171842
/sci/ here
This anon got it right
Y'all are fucking brianlets
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cpwSGsb-rTs

>>36174508
what the fuck are you saying? the question only works if she told you because otherwise you have no way of knowing she has two kids.

>>36174172
>The fact that they're different is irrelevan. We are literally only concerned with the if the "other" is a boy or a girl. People ITT are making the mistake where they think its just "if they aren't both girls then what is the chance they are both boys" but that's not the question. We KNOW that the one(not the "other") is a boy. So his sex is irrelevant to the question of the "other"'s sex
The hag gives us two bits of information:
1) There are 2 children.
2) At least one is a boy, which is the same as saying "one is a boy, and the other is a boy or a girl"

And the hag asks us, what is the chance that the other is a boy, this means that both children are boys.

So first we apply the fact that there are 2 children: we have 3 possibilities, BB which is 25% chance, GG which is 25% chance and I'm going to count BG and GB as one option and has 50% chance.

Now we apply the second bit of information, the only circumstances that stay valid are GB (50%) and BB (25%).

Now we've applied all the information, we are left with 25/75 chance of BB so the answer is 1/3

Utterly blown the fuck out!

>>36174478
>she could be referring to B the eldest or b the youngest
Except they don't HAVE to be separated by age, they can be separated by anything. We know for a fact that they are separate in some respect. The age bit is confusing because we by default assume that that is what's different about them (and it most likely is).

It's not what's different that matters, it's the fact that they are different that matters.

>>36171963
Because they're dumb as shit

>>36174412
>woman says she has at least one male child of 2
>from her wording we can count an instance of BG and GB as well as 2 instances of BB since she doesn't specify if it's the elder or younger child so we must account for an instance of her referring to her eldest and another referring to her youngest
>according to the 1/3rd autists order absolutely does matter
>we now have 4 instances, 2 where the other child is a girl and 2 where the other child is a boy
>the answer is 50/50 by doing your work properly and not purposefully leaving out part of the equation
See the gold and silver ball question for another example of how a pair of duplicates being counted twice factors in

>>36174575
>>36174295
Everyone should really just migrate to the /sci/ thread

>>36174619
>2 instances of BB since she doesn't specify if it's the elder or younger child so we must account for an instance of her referring to her eldest and another referring to her youngest
One instance of BB is identical to another instance of BB. Because they are exactly the same, they cannot be different. You're counting the same thing twice.

>*teleports behind her*
>Heh, nothing personnel
>*slices her into 1/3*

>>36174683
that means BG and GB shouldn't be counted separately because they're the same.
leaving BB and BG. 50/50.

>>36174683
Jesus Christ, you seriously can't follow why you would have to have two BBs if you have both BG and GB? You really just think "durr hurr it looks the same"?

>>36174526
One of the balls in the gold and silver ball question is predetermined to be a gold ball just like one of these children is predetermined to be a boy
>>36174597
>the fact they are different that matters
That's exactly what I'm saying, you have 2 pairs of boys distinct from each based on whatever you choose be it age, physical placement in the world, shoe size, whatever
The important thing is that the woman is referring to only one of them so you need to factor in an extra instance since due to the wording of the problem she could be referring to B1 or B2 just as how she could be referring to B older or B younger in the mixed gender instances

>>36174683
*You're counting the same instance twice
To clarify.

Combining B with eldest + X variables and B with youngest + Y variables is the same as combining B with eldest + X variables and B with youngest + Y variables. They are the same instance whereas BG and GB are not.

Probability is about comparing the ratio of instances as they are.

>>36174819
Where the fuck are you getting this "youngest oldest" shit from?

>>36171842
BG is logically the same as GB because it is a combination rather than a permutation you absolute retard.

>>36174789
Bb or BG. B as the first variable is determined.
b represents another child who is a boy, G represents another child who is a girl.

each instance starts with B to represent the first child. there are only two potential other children. b or G.
between b or G is a 50% chance.

GB and BG are the same, sequence does not matter

Stop being dumb

>>36174768
>>36174715
BG and GB aren't the same because the B and G in BG represent different sets of data than the B and G in GB. In BB those sets of data without a gender value are still different from each other, but not different from the sets of data with gender value in BB.

XG and YB is different from XB and YG. XB and YB is the same as XB and YB.

>>36174683
Wrong, two people in a pair being referred to separately is not a difficult concept
Hell I have a younger brother and her saying something like "my son is tall" could refer to either of us while saying "my son doesn't like wearing sandals" would only refer to one of us
The woman in the problem makes a general statement about her son so you need to account for it applying to both sons

>>36174844
It doesn't matter at all, that's been my point the entire time, I was only referencing that non. But SOMETHING is different between the first child and the second child, otherwise they would be the same child.

>>36174564
I didn't realize that the average /sci/ user could be so retarded

File: IMG_5933.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>36174819
Dumbass, In both GB and BG B must be "the one boy" and G has to be the "other" therefore if you're including both you have to include two scenarios where the first one represents the other and where the first one represents the "one boy" for BB as well as BG/GB, since you're just flipping the same information in the instance of BG/GB.

>>36174924
yes you autist, siblings aren't the same person. I'm going to fucking shit myself.

>>36174912
If you have a younger brother, and you're both boys, and your mom says "my sons are both boys", is that not the same thing as if she said "my sons are both boys"?

>>36174886
>50% chance
So we agree, even accounting for all combinations of which child she was referring to and whatever the genders are mixed or not the answer is still 50/50

>>36174951
That's exactly my point you fucking idiot. Holy shit how can you be this god damn dense?

>>36174947
In XY, X and Y are differentiated by something. We don't know what. A set of X or Y data with B included is different from a set of X or Y data with Y included. A set of X or Y data with B included is not different from a set of X or Y data with B included.

I am not "just flipping it".

>>36174979
yes, I'm a 50/50 poster though so I never disagreed.

>>36175020
>A set of X or Y data with B included is different from a set of X or Y data with G included.

Fuck I'm so pissed off I made a typo.

BB is the same thing as BB in ALL respects, not just gender, while GB is not the same thing as BG in ALL respects, not just gender.

>>36174952
Is saying "johnny is a boy and Lara is a girl" not the same information as "Lara is a girl and johnny is a boy"? Why would you count both of those but not both "Johnny is a boy and Karl is a boy" am deathly "Karl is a boy and Johnny is a boy"?

>>36174952
Except that's not what's being said
She's saying one of my children is a boy, there are now 4 possible pairings
BG, GB, B-referred B, and B B-referred
Don't get upset that you couldn't understand the problem and left out a quarter of the relevant data
If the order of the children in the pairing doesn't matter then logically you can also discard the distinction between BG and GB which again leaves you with a 50/50 answer

>>36175072
>Is saying "johnny is a boy and Lara is a girl" not the same information as "Lara is a girl and johnny is a boy"?
Doesn't fit. In this case, the statement would be "Johhny is a girl and Lara is a boy", and "Johnny is a boy and Lara is a girl". They are not the same thing.

>these 1/3rd answers
I thought autists were supposed to be good with math and logic

If you took a million mothers all with exactly two children, the average mother would have 1 boy child and 1 girl child.

In the above question, we already know that a specific mother has one boy child. It's therefore more likely that the other one is a girl. There is only a 1/3 chance of a boy.

The question isn't asking the chance of it being born a boy, it's asking the chance of it being a boy.

>>36175107
In BG and GB B MUST represent the one boy and G MUST represtent the other. The one boy is inherently the boy in both situations and thus the "other" is inherently the girl, meaning BG conveys the same information as GB, just listing the two children in a different order.

>>36173783
well you're a complete fucking idiot

>>36175093
Neither one is being SPECIFICALLY referred to. There is no "B-referred" because she didn't actually refer to a specific child. The fact that there is a B doesn't change the nature of the Bs that are present. It only serves to eliminate GG.

>BG
>GB
>autists somehow have deluded themselves into believing these are not the exact same in a hypothetical situation without any differentiating information between slot 1 and slot 2

If the hag said "I have two children, one is 9 and the other is 6. One is a boy. What is the the gender of the other one?" Then you 1/3rd autists would have a point. But there is absolutely no differentiation between the first and second child provided by the question.

>>36175171
No you retard, the "it's alreadt rolled heads 200 times, so it must be tails this time!" falacy has already been disproven

>>36175171
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

>>36175197
>In BG and GB B MUST represent the one boy
But we don't know which one is the one boy, which is why they're ordered.

>>36175202
>resorting to namecalling
>calls me an idiot

>>36172439
That isn't the implication.

>>36175215
>But there is absolutely no differentiation between the first and second child provided by the question.
Except for the fact that they are different children. We know that there is differentiation, it's implicit, but we don't know what it is.

File: you're all right.jpg (36KB, 426x785px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 426x785px

>American education

bing bong original

>>36175205
Wrong, try to keep up
Because she doesn't specify is exactly why you must factor in 2 instances where she is referring to one or the other, you've provided no argument or evidence that supports why if the child is elder or older doesn't matter, likely because doing so invalidates any importance the GB or BG pairings would have which would just support my answer of 50/50
You have been so utterly btfo the only thing you can do is slink away in shame

>>36175282
Yes we do know which one is the boy and we know it isn't the other because the question literally says so. If the "one of them is a boy" is considered one child the "other" is considered a separate then as stated by the question the "one of them" that is the boy must be the boy and thus the "other" must be the girl.

>>36175282
They're not ordered at all. It's your autism that's doing the ordering. The question doesn't even imply any kind of ordering

>>36175309
No, it's not. You're creating that implication in your mind, the question tricks you by using words you associate with real things - children. But there is not a single piece of evidence in the question to suggest there is any difference between these """children""" except possibly their gender

>>36175282
the boy is the one the hag told you about. there is no order. why does everybody think there's an order?

>>36175345
>But there is not a single piece of evidence in the question to suggest there is any difference between these """children""" except possibly their gender
She says she has two children. In order for them to not be the same child they have to be different.

>>36175356
Holy fuck the order isn't chronological it's only how we compare two different data sets with one changed variable.

>>36175356
>why does everybody think there's an order?
Autism, the question is a logic trap designed to ensare people that can't see the forest through the trees

>>36175381
2 data sets = 50/50

>>36175392
this is fucking incredible.

>>36175342
In BG, we know she's referring to the first B. In GB, we know she's referring to the second B. In BB, we don't know which one she's referring to, but it doesn't matter because which one she's referring to doesn't change what they are.

This is by far the worst thread I've ever seen on this board before

>>36175381
>She says she has two children. In order for them to not be the same child they have to be different.
No, they don't. You're reading into that in your own mind. The children are only hypothetical, she could just have easily said this:
"I only own things that are red and blue and I own things in those colours with a 1:1 ratio. I own two hats. One hat is red. What is the chance the other hat is blue?"
The framing device is meaningless without expanded information. You can assume anything that the question doesn't tell you, and working off the information you're given, the answer to the OP MUST be 50%. Anything else is just you inserting your own experiences into a pure hypothetical.

>>36175432
Until GG (one of four potential data sets when variable possibilities are included) is excluded.

Let's break the question down and go over what we learned
Hag has 2 children, makes reference to one saying they are a boy
This leaves us with 4 possible outcomes, a boy girl pairing, a girl boy pairing, and 2 boy boy pairings
This logically makes sense since all she referenced was one of her children being a boy with no other distinction such as age
Of these 4 possible outcomes what is the probability that she has 2 male children

>>36175474
>You can assume anything that the question doesn't tell you
You CAN'T assume, rather

I've been with my wife for 10 years now. We met in high school, and I got her pregnant.
She is and always has been a lazy person and a shit cook. I wouldn't even mind eating shit food if she at least made it on time. But she rarely did.

We'd get into screaming arguments constantly about how lazy and worthless she was. I felt like an asshole for it, but goddamn she was a real piece of work. The only reason I dealt with all this was for the kids, and also because the sex is great.

But one night, I got fed up. Not only did she get drunk, neglect the kids, and made me top Ramen for dinner, but she decided to give me attitude too. She was being real fucking bitchy. So I told my grandparents to keep an eye on the kids and told my wife we were going to go out and have dinner together. I drove maybe 3 blocks to a quiet area (we live in Oregon, it's not hard to find a quiet field) and I got out of the car, went around like I was going to open her door for her and let her out, and I just beat the shit out of her while she was still seatbelted. After a few punches, I asked her if she wanted to go back to her parents. She started screaming and yelling and said yes, so I beat the shit out of her again. Then I asked her what she wanted to do. She finally got smart and said she wanted to go home. So I took her home and dared her to start trouble. I even handed her my cellphone and dialed her mom's number on the drive home. I made her talk to her mom, while daring her to fucking say something.

Before that incident, I had never laid a hand on her. But I had always threatened it. I told her "one of these days, if you don't straighten up, I'm going to lay hands on you."

All my meals have been on time, and she just recently tried to make a meatloaf. It was mediocre, but I was just thrilled that she tried.

Do with this information what you will.

>>36175255
That would only apply if the question was "what is the chance of her next child being a boy". The question was "What is the probability that her other child is a boy as well?"

What is the probability of a coin being flipped heads 200 times in a row? Very small. That's not the same question as "what will the next flip be."

>>36171842
I will say 1/2, because the permutation is not important as the combinations.

>>36175476
>four potential data
You mean 5, there are 2 sets of BB that need to be counted since all she says is that one of them is a boy, since she could be mentioning either boy each one is counted as a separate possibility, the same way you count the 2 gold ball box twice in the gold and silver ball problem

File: die cis scum.jpg (510KB, 1761x2581px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 1761x2581px

>>36171749
>assuming the gender of your children
>>36173940

>>36175538
Holy Christ you are fucking retarded

this thread is impressive. I thought NEETs were supposed to be smart because of all the free time they have to study maths and literature.

What happened, /r9k/?

>>36175573
Prove why the distinction doesn't matter, back up your non argument unless you're a brianlet

>>36175514
Except the question is literally only asking the sex of the other boy, we already know that "one boy" is a boy

everyone in this thread needs to fUCKING die.

>>36175474
>No, they don't.
Yes the do, because if they're not different they're the same?

>"I only own things that are red and blue and I own things in those colours with a 1:1 ratio. I own two hats. One hat is red. What is the chance the other hat is blue?"
That's a different question, it would be analogous to asking what the probability is of the hag's other child being a girl, not a boy.

>>36175602
BG - she refers to first child as the boy
GB - she refers to second child as the boy
GG - not applicable
BB - she refers to either child as the boy
In the final set, it doesn't matter which child is the boy because you're only solving for the other child. You don't need to determine the order of genders, and nor can you. You can't count BB as two sets because it doesn't even fucking matter which one it is at the end of the day.

Therefore the answer is 1/3

>>36175613
Yes. What is the sex of the boy, not what the sex of her next child will be. The question encompasses the whole set, not a single event. 50% would imply that there is a greater chance of BB than BG.

>>36175538
Which boy she's mentioning doesn't change what the boy she's mentioning is, which is either XB or YB. In BB she could be mentioning either XB or YB, but they are still XB and YB.

>tfw people saw the Bertrands box paradox and think they are clever now saying 1/3 while ignoring a key part of the box paradox

>>36175653
>Yes the do, because if they're not different they're the same?
There's nothing in the question saying they're not the same except possibly with gender. It literally is just pure numbers if you're capable of seeing past the veneer of hypothetical children.

I think i want to print out this whole thread, boil it in water and make the most concentrated distillation of autism the world has ever seen

>>36175666
BB - the other kid is also a boy (50%)
BG - the other kid is a girl (%50)

that's it. /thread

>>36175666
BG = GB because they express the same information in a different order since the boy first mentioned HAS to be the boy as is stated in their question and the "other" HAS to be the girl as is stated by the question. How can these brainlets not understand that the "one boy" can't be a girl? How is that too fucking hard to understand?

>>36171749
Well a specific breeding pair has a higher chance of producing one gender, and order is unimportant, therefore a bit over 50%

>>36175710
>There's nothing in the question saying they're not the same except possibly with gender
Except for the fact that there are two of them. Not one, two. In order for them to not be the same person something has to be different about their data sets, whether it's chronological order, spacial coordinates, anything. They could be genetic duplicates but something is still different about them in their entirety.

>>36175738
>>36175753
Wrong, the order of the children matters

>remaning child is either a boy or a girl
>obviously there are three choices guys c'mon

>>36175669
>50% is higher than 50%

>>36175687
Which means accounting for an instance where she is referring to XB and YB separately
Or are you going to keep saying it's wrong, which I will remind you that by the logic you are using means the answer to Bertrands box paradox is 50/50
Just like in that question it matters which gold ball you take in this question it matters which son is being referred to and if it doesn't then factoring in whether the pairing is BG or GB also doesn't matter since the pairing will be 1 son and 1 daughter regardless of birth order

>>36175769
no it doesn't you pseudointellectual maroon.
explain in detail why.

>>36175769
No it doesn't you fucking brainlet, the B has to be the one that the question literally fucking says is the boy, unless you've decided to take into account whether or not the hag is lying then the one she says is a boy cannot be the girl.

>>36175769
If the order of the children matters then you need two instances of BB, see Bertrands box as to why

>>36175762
I have below in spoilers two numbers, you tell me if they are the same or different.

1

1

ONLY in the case of gender are the children POSSIBLY different. Let me represent that as above:

1 - B
1 - G

If you're insinuating that the """children""" are different in any manner except possibly gender, you are reading into the question things that the question does not assert.

>>36175796
But she isn't. In order for her to refer to XB or YB she would have to say what X or Y ARE, which she hasn't. An example of that would be referring to the boy as her eldest and not her youngest or vice-versa. She has only said that it exists.

>>36175787
Look it up. This is a famous probability paradox. You are wrong.

File: 1491688187298.gif (10KB, 741x747px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 741x747px

I can barely do basic math and even I know 1/3 is wrong

Fucking retards

>>36171749
P (A|B) = P (A + B) / P (B)
Chance of child A being a boy and B being a girl is 1/4 = P (A + B)
Chance of child B being girl is 1/2 = P (B)
P (A|B) = (1/4) / (1/2) = 50%
All while I shit my insides out.

>>36175858
Except it isn't, it was an attempt at famous probability paradox that OP fucked up, see the /sci/ thread

>>36175821
The first one is above the second one. They both have the same value, but as actual EVENTS, when you consider the totality of their existence and their relationship to one another, they are different. Probability is about determining the likelihood of entire events and then assigning values to those events.

Guys, the children are indistinguishable in this question in any way besides gender. If they are two boys, assume we cannot tell them apart; i.e. they are the same.

>>36175890
Basically, the fact that they are both 1s is not what they, it is a part of what they are. One is top 1 and the other is bottom 1. They are the same with regards to one value but not another. Even if you're not measuring the value in which they differ they are still different in terms of other values, which makes them different whole events, and if probability is about creating a ratio between events with x value and events with y value, you have to consider the events as events.

>>36171749
0%

She's not stating how many are boys. She's relieved that at least one isn't a girl.

There's a 50% probability that her other child is a boy.
>she has two children
>1/2 is accounted for
>as a child can either be a girl or a boy, you're looking at a 50% probability here

You should not be ordering them as:
BB
BG
GB
BG

You should order them as:
1 Boy 1 Girl
2 Boys

This question is always worded differently every time I see it, which is probably why so many people get confused. Often times it is very vague and leaves too many assumptions. The OP does not give the gender of the first born so the order is irrelevant. Several versions of this question do word it in such a way where order is important, but not this version.

>>36175885
The average of 50% is obtained by looking at a data sample where half of the children are boys, and half girls. In this question, the data sample consists of only two children. If we keep the 50% figure, that means that 1 boy and 1 girl is the most likely distribution. If we already know one is a boy, then the other one is probably a girl.

The question isn't asking the chance of an additional future child being born a boy.

>>36175890
>>36175948
>The first one is above the second one.
Kek. That's grasping and you know it. They're identical values.

>They both have the same value, but as actual EVENTS,
Stop right there. This is obviously the assumption that you're working off of, but it's faulty. Events are actual, but the variables proposed in the OP are just values. You can't imply that they have any sort of existence or reality outside of the values given. They're just placeholders for values because people don't like doing puzzle problems with pure math, but that's what it is at the end of the day.

>>36175940
>If they are two boys, assume we cannot tell them apart; i.e. they are the same.
Then they would be the same person. A person who is exactly like you who exists in the same point in time, space, and any other unfathomable dimensions as you is you, the only thing that makes two events comparable to each other (two instead of one) is that they are different in some way, no matter how small or not obvious. I'm not talking about physiological features or behavior.

>>36175970
>She's not stating how many are boys
She literally says "at least one", meaning that it's a guaranteed that at least 1/2 is a boy.

>>36176020
>They're identical values.
Their number value is identical but not their spacial value. This is how they can even be two numbers. If their spacial value were the same it would be one number.

>Events are actual, but the variables proposed in the OP are just values
That we have to consider as events because hypothetical children are hypothetical events.

>>36175839
So you're just a retard, that's ok
You say she hasn't specifically said if she meant the elder or younger child, this is why the BeGy and GeBy pairs are valid, however the fact that she hasn't specified which child is exactly in a BB pair she could mean Be or By and which is why you must account for either one being who she referred to, just like in Bertrands box you must account for picking gold ball 1 and gold ball 2 from the box with 2 balls
Refuting this basic concept and insisting the answer in this question is 1/3rd instead of 50/50 is the same as insisting the answer to Bertrands box is 50/50 instead of the 2/3rds answer we know to be true
I'm sorry you had to find out you were a brianlet anon and that you can't understand basic probability questions and your only retort was just repeating "but she didn't say which one" over and over just like the retards that said "you didn't say which gold ball in the box" for the other problem

>>36176077
Their spacial values do not matter. Do you, when adding 1 and 1 ask where each 1 is?
No. Because they only represent values, you fucking mong.

>>36176090
>she hasn't specified which child is exactly in a BB pair

SHE HAS TWO KIDS.
AT LEAST ONE IS A BOY.

she never gave any ages.

>>>/sci/8818220

>>36176062
Nigger, read the fucking rest of the post before you reply. You're reading the hag's sentence wrong.

>>36176077
Their number value is identical but not their spacial value.
How do you know that? Does the question tell you that?

>This is how they can even be two numbers. If their spacial value were the same it would be one number.
No, that's just an abstraction of your mind. You can still have two numbers of the same value in the same position. The very fact that one can think of such a concept precludes that.

>That we have to consider as events because hypothetical children are hypothetical events.
This is just obstinancy. The question once again does not imply that. You do.

>>36176137
That's not an argument, because she gave no ages we have to assume that she could be talking about the older or younger one, I've already explained this and you've still come up with nothing to logically disprove that
Everyone is laughing at you right now

File: poorscreenshots.png (60KB, 1125x383px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1125x383px

>>36171749
I like it when stupid math or riddle threads appear, I enjoy the autism tirades

>>36176123
>Their spacial values do not matter. Do you, when adding 1 and 1 ask where each 1 is?
They do when you consider them as events. 1 + 1 isn't a probability expression, so you don't have to.

>>36176231
>getting 1/3rd requires adding extra variables and conditions instead of natural logic

>>36176233
Fairly certain it still doesn't matter, why are you considering them as events?

>>36176231
>Bar-Hillel and Falk, however, suggest an alternative scenario. They imagine a culture in which boys are invariably chosen over girls as walking companions.
1/3rd fags CONFIRMED for reading their own biases into the question.

>>36176231
/thread
Fucking faggot shit fucking board

>>36171842
Wow yall dumb. Lets take this step by step.
Why you are wrong:

>Given zero information, other than "i have two children" there are THREE outcomes:
>GG, BG, BB.
>BG and GB are the same given the information above

NOW

>Given this information: "I have two children, at least one is a boy, what is the probability that her other child is a boy as well" There are 2 out comes
BG BB
>There are not 4, there are not 3, there are two.
>There can't be BG GB BB GG because BG GB are the same and GG is impossible

>we are left with BX (x being unknown)
>Total of 2 possibilities: BB, BG
>50%

Thank you, and yall are dumb

>>36176233
This>>36176309
Throughout our chain you seem to have been operating under the assumption that they are events. It doesn't seem logical to assume that, so why are you?

>>36176191
>How do you know that? Does the question tell you that?
Not their spacial value specifically, but yes, because there are two of them.

>You can still have two numbers of the same value in the same position
So you mean every time I add 1 to 1 I'm actually adding infinite 1s to infinite 1s.

>>36176230
>because she gave no ages we have to assume that she could be talking about the older or younger one
I wasn't that anon
It doesn't matter, the reference doesn't change what the data is, it only makes it clear to us. Since we don't know which she was referring to, it could be XB or YB, whereas if she said it was the younger or older, we would know it's XB or YB. X and Y are not themselves modified by being referred to. When you learn that 1 + 1 = 2, 1 + 1 doesn't become 2, it was always 2 but now someone told you.

File: 1488360826210.png (140KB, 354x378px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 354x378px

>>36176231
>mfw the brainlets thought they were clever saying 1/3rd

>>36176398
>Since we don't know which she was referring to, it could be XB or YB
That is literally what I was saying, thank you for backing up my reasoning, because it could be one of those options we have to account for both and if it doesn't matter they why does GB or BG matter
Either way the answer is 50/50 as confirmed here
>>36176231

>>36176398
>So you mean every time I add 1 to 1 I'm actually adding infinite 1s to infinite 1s.
I'm saying it doesn't matter. Only the value does. That's what you're not getting.

>>36176346
Because what a child is is determined by factors other than its just gender. If it isn't an event it should be referred to as something other than a child.

>>36176513
>If it isn't an event it should be referred to as something other than a child.
You're absolutely right - it should be. But sadly it isn't because as I mentioned earlier, brainlets cannot handle pure math

>>36176453
BB is still the same as BB even if XB is referred to and YB is not and vice-versa. Y and X aren't modified by the referral. That's what I'm saying but you're not getting it.

>>36176231
It's talking about events and trials. It's as saying that you flip a coin 2 times, whereby under any circumstance it will not be tails-tails, what is the probability that you will get heads-heads? Which is easy to see that it is 1/3.

However, in this example, we are asked that, "what are the chances of a old lady having either a boy or girl?" Which is 1/2. Order, and Permutations do not even matter in this problem. That is, boy and girl or boy and boy.

>>36176536
You're deliberately excluding what something is explicitly defined as, like you're suggesting that the problem is secretly something other than what it is. In which case you might as well not do it at all because I can create any secret definition I want.

Order of the children doesn't matter you fucking idiots, replace them with black and white checkers pieces, there's no way you argue black white is different to white black.

>>36176577
They don't need to be modified, how do you not understand that? The mere fact she doesn't specify means she could be mean either or which means accounting for both outcomes ala Bertrands box, are you really so retarded that you can't follow basic logic and probability?

>>36176681
They do in order for BB to qualify as a separate event from BB. The only difference between events is their data, not whether or not you know what that data is.

To everyone making the one third case, imagine the hag is pregnant and confused. "I just got the results of my sonogram, but I'm having trouble remembering - either my baby is going to be male, or my oldest child is a boy."

What are the chances the baby will be male?

Still 50/50.

>>36176513
this is literally jibberish nonsense

if not trolling you are worthless garbage human kill yourself if trolling the same

File: 1459980942392.png (39KB, 566x475px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 566x475px

>>36176702
Wrong, you really can't handle basic logic then
I bet you think the answer to this is 50/50

File: 1491109610712.gif (1MB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 250x251px

>>36171749
trick question: No woman would ever talk to me

Too easy lads

>>36176774
No it's not, you just don't understand what I'm saying.

>>36176792
The events themselves still do not change, you only know which you can exclude or include

File: 1488065379195.jpg (72KB, 300x339px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 300x339px

It's 27/5 you fucking mongs.

>>36172492
>Everything in that picture

>>36176231
In this example you are being shown a boy who has been randomly chosen from the 2 children, meaning order no longer matters as you're only trying to find the gender of the child left at home.

That isn't happening in OP, we are simply being told one of the 2 children is a boy, which could be referring to either her first born or her second born. The child we're told about isn't a random selection that turned out to be a boy, it's an observation of the 2 children. This is why order matters.

These threads give me headaches, everyone is so stubborn about their answer which usually depends on the wording of the OP.

File: don't be retarded.png (12KB, 638x296px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 638x296px

>>36176792
there is no box with only silver balls, the chance of both girls is ruled out.

>>36176792
not him but why isnt the answer 50/50? doesnt the third box get eliminated once you grab a gold ball

>>36176792
gold = boys
silver = girls

there is no box with 2 silvers inside. only two boxes, one with two gold and one with a gold and silver.

Imagine you come across this family at home.

You see one of the children on the porch.

Then you meet the old woman at the door who tells you at least one of her children is a boy.

Obviously if the child on the porch is a boy her statement is true. But even if the child were a girl, her statement would be true as long as the second unseen child were a boy.

In this way we can see that GB is a possibility distinct from BG.

>>36176981
in this case you never see either child. all you know is that one is a boy.

>>36176938
because there's three possible ways you could grab a gold ball - from the box with one, from the box with two gold balls, or the other ball from that box with two

so the next ball you pull out is either:
silver ball
gold ball 1
gold ball 2

>>36176938
Yes but you're also twice as likely to have picked from the first box since there's 2 gold balls in that one. This makes the probabilities
1st box: 2/3
2nd box: 1/3
3rd box: 0/3

Everyone saying 1/3 is wrong
Learn to read ",/what is the chance the other one is a boy" can NOT be one third it is 1/4 or 1/2 depending upon how you interpret this shitty vague problem.

>>36176938
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand%27s_box_paradox

>>36177040
>>36177041
There is no box of silver balls (girls). The old hag ruled it out when she said one of her two children is a boy (gold ball). there are only two boxes. this leaves 3 gold balls and a silver one.
the probability of selecting each box is 50%, the probability of selecting a boy from one of the boxes is 100% and the other 50%.
she has a 3/4 chance of selecting a gold ball.

>>36177041
But isn't that just the probability you reach into a certain box rather than the probability the next ball you take out is a certain colour?

>>36176957
Even misunderstanding the question like you are right now doesn't come up with a 1/3rd answer, it comes out 2/3rds

>>36176792
this isn't the same as the question.
there's only one box. one box with a boy or a girl in it.
if there were more genders, there'd be more kids in the box.
there's not a separate reality for each instance.

File: 1456089247622.jpg (259KB, 850x726px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 850x726px

GG, BG, GB, BB
Each has a 1/4 chance of occurring.
BG = GB = 1/2 chance of occurring.
GG = 1/4 chance, BB = 1/4 chance.
GG + BB + BG + GB = 1
GG can't exist in this new scenario.
0 + BB + BG + GB = 1
Each outcome has the same probability of 1/3, because the total continues to be 1 and there are only 3 equal outcomes.
BB + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1
BB = 1/3

>>36177300
>being this much of a brainlet
The reasoning behind counting the first box twice is why you would count a pair of brothers twice since she never specifies which one she means, the answer for the hag question is 50/50,you denying this shows you have a basic deficiency when it comes to logic
Can you tie your own shoes?
Does mother let you outside to play without supervision?

>>36177354
I'm not denying it, I'm telling you why it's 50% and not 33%.

>>36177150
If you're in the first box you're guaranteed to take out another gold. If you're in the second box you're guaranteed to take out a silver.

It's basically the same thing

This guy's trying to mix the problems and getting confused because they're separate things >>36177149

>>36177392
Which is what I've been saying so why even bother to open your trap saying I was wrong, or are you so dumb you can't read what someone is saying

>>36177444
>you really can't handle basic logic thenI bet you think the answer to this is 50/50

inflammatory insinuation that 50/50 is the wrong answer

>>36171749
>only two sexes

Fucking normos.

>>36176902
I re-read OP and realized I was wrong because it specifically asks what the gender of the other child is. Order doesn't matter in this case.

I hate these threads, so many little word changes that actually matter.

>>36177444
naww bb don't be like dat

>>36177468
>post picture of a different problem with a different answer
>thinks I'm talking about the hag
So you really can't read

>>36177017
Imagine approaching the situation from the opposition direction.

Given two children, there is a 3/4 chance at least one of them is a girl, with a 1/4 chance that they are both girls.

If the woman were to say that at least one of children is a boy, the 1/4 chance that both are girls is ruled out, leaving a 2/3 chance there is at least one girl and at least one boy.

lol no yall are starting with 3 possible outcomes:
BG = 1/3
GB = 1/3
BB = 1/3

BG or GB = 1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3
BB = 1/3

when it is:
"if you already have one boy, what is the chance you will get another boy"?

Now we get TWO possible outcomes:
BB
BG

The probability you will get a boy for your firstborn = 50%
The probability you will get a girl for your firstborn is 50%

Bam, you get a boy as your firstborn
so now we're at:
1 Boy or "B"
The probability you will get a girl then get a boy (or "GB") is 0% (this is because you didn't get a girl as your firstborn, you got a boy)
The probability you will get a boy then a girl (or "BG") is 50%
The probability you will get a boy then a boy (or "BB" 50%

>>36177753
inb4 "question doesn't specify firstborn"
false it does the same thing in terms of logic
The first information you receive from the old hag is that "at least one is a boy"

Imagine you are the mother and and the old hag is God

When old hag says "at least one is a boy", then you that is equivalent to a baby boy popping out of ur vagina, because it is the first piece of information

Not enough information. What was the age of the hag when she had the child? What was the age of her mate? Was the hag under significant stress during this time? Did the hag use artificial insemination to select for a specific gender? Did the hag even have the child herself or did she just steal it off the street? Does the hag prefer to steal female or male children?

>>36174564
>Browsing /sci/ without understand set combinations vs permutations
GB and BG are that same goddamn thing.

>>36177753
>"if you already have one boy, what is the chance you will get another boy"?

This is not the only possibility that satisfies the condition "at least one is a boy."

You must also account for the possibility that you already have a girl, and that the chance the other is a boy is 100% due to the hag's condition.

>>36178091
He's not wrong that it's 50%, but he arrived to that conclusion for entirely the wrong reasons.

File: 1491789226062.jpg (118KB, 500x625px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 500x625px

A succubus teleports into your room and says to you "I have consumed four and a half souls today, at least one of them wasn't a virgin".

What is the chance that one of them was a virgin?

If you answer this correctly, she will turn into whatever you want and love you eternally, answer this incorrectly and she will turn you into a succubus (male) and take you back to the hell.

>>36177877
>>36177753
Opps I was wrong
I was under the impression that "2 children, at least one is a boy" adds the same amount of information to the universe as "2 fertilized eggs, firstborn baby boy popping out of vagina"
The second adds more information of "firstborn + boy"
first only adds "boy"


The answer is 1/3

"2 children"
>okay XX
"at least one is boy"
>okay, so, either BX or XB which means BG or GB
"prob of BB?"
> BG or GB equivalent
>2/3 bg
>1/3 bb


the answer is 1/3 guys

>>36178426
>the answer is 1/3 guys
ok