Well /sci/?

>>8541155
is thios cultjural fair ???

File: 1479649650605.jpg (97KB, 756x440px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 756x440px

>>8541155
The solution is obviously to line the feminists up against the wall.

>>8541167
even better, it's culturally progressive

>>8541155
Depends on how much time has passed since the bill took effect.

What about twin males?

>>8541155
Assuming this is China, where a family can have at most 1 children, 50/50. (assuming no possibility to know the sex before birth and abort it depending on the result)

>>8541155
1st child: 50/50
2nd child will only be born in female child families, but because it's still 50/50, the ratio won't change
This would end in:
50% of families with one son
25% of f with a son and a daughter
12.5% 1s 2d
....
Even if we say stop after random numbers of daughters the ratio wouldn't change
50% son
25% daughter son
12.5% d2 son
12.5% d3
On every firstborn female follows a firstborn son, for every son in 25% is a second born daughter, the same in the 12.5 split

>>8541205
>more women and less men result in the sexual market reversing, women start to have a hard time having sex because men have plenty to choose from
>+ we get a bigger probability of finding sisters willing to go down on eachother

This law would be awesome

>>8541213
Actually no, see
>>8541256

>>8541256
There is no requirement for a family that has a daughter to keep having kids until they have a son though. They could just have an only daughter and stop there.

Unknowable because families might stop at X amount of daughters and never have a son.

>>8541155
Still 50/50. Had the same problem, except that it was with a Muslim vizir except than feminists.

the expected value of a negative binomial distribution is rp/(1-p), where r is the number of failures and p is the probability of success. the probability of either sex of offspring is about 0.5, so E=1*0.5/0.5 = 1 success per experiment before failure

So the ratio is still 50:50

>>8541155
Depends on if there's a law which states that there is a minimum and maximum amount of many kids a family must and can have. Otherwise it's 50/50.

>>8541293
Let's assume 69 as maximum, since that is the world record.

>>8541306
For one woman? I say bs.

>>8541326
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-prolific-mother-ever

>>8541155
After summing the probabilities of each amount of women, the expected value of the amount of females will be [math]\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{n}{2^{n+1}}[/math], which is equivalent to 1. The expected amount of males is always 1 so there is a 50% split.

This makes sense because there is always going to be 1 man but there could be no women.

>>8541257
But then again, the electorate would be completely controlled by women. Prepare for the ultimate nanny state, bleeding any productive members dry and subsidizing failure and incompetence.

>>8541381
>we have a bunch of sugar mommas babying the only men left in the world and milking us for our semen
This sounds like a paradise. Plus we probably wouldn't have wars anymore, just catfights and petty remarks to other world leaders, unless they weaponize men. Women typically aren't strong enough to kill acting alone.

>>8541155
Not enough information
(how many families stop after having one daughter, or two etc, does the bill force them to continue until one son?)
If the bill forces them to continue until one son the answer is this
>>8541375
50/50

>>8541155
What about twins or moreuplets?? What if my wife make 5 sons in one pregnancy?

>>8541415
you must kill 4 of them

If a male child turns out to be trans, does the family pick back up with making children?

>>8541416
And what if I give a birth 5 girls and 1 boy but the boy comes out the first?

>>8541439
the girls are forfeit

>>8541259
There are still the same amount of families with ds as dd, all that changes is the amount of ddd and dds in total

>>8541373
Still fake.

>>8541418
Feminists hate trans people so no.

>>8541155
>implying this isn't the most male-friendly law ever

feminists would want MORE men so they can stuff 10 cocks in their vaginas at once

>>8541155
Wat.

So 50/50 that the first child is male, so 50% of families will only have one (male) child.
50% of families will have AT LEAST one child (female), but from here it differs simply because the amount of families having more than one child is falling.

I'd put money on the numbers not changing any real meaningful amount.


Interesting question, but the logic behind it
>Have one very unbalanced female to male ratio generation
>Next generation is very small due to low amount of males
>???

>>8541155
This will increase the number of only-child male families. The males would then become more of the heiarchy of society because more detail would be put into the single child. However, I don't have a kid, nor do I have any evidence to back that claim; in theory it sounds kind of practical though.

>>8541288
>>8541375
Reached the same conclusion after running the algorithmic scenarios through my unconscious cognitive processor.

>>8541155
im not sure, whats the average number of children in households?

Imagine you are a female who is pregnant with triplets, and wants to have more children. Dr. Hall tells you two of the fetuses are female, and one is male. He asks you to pick a fetus to abort. You pick fetus B. He then reveals fetus A is a female, and asks you to choose whether to abort fetus B or fetus C. Should you switch?

>>8541155
Base case: let n=1, then there's a 50/50 chance of having 1 female and 1 male child. We then add a child. We expect a 50/50 chance of having a female or male after the female. Thus, the expected amount of females and males is always equal.

stays 50/50 but the population decreases.
the intention is obviously to prevent families with multiple sons, but really it just lowers the number of total kids.
if we simplify the problem by saying everyone will continue having kids until they have a son then that means everyone has a 100% chance of having one son, while there is only a 50% chance of having a daughter, 25% of having two daughters, 12.5% of having three and so on - which would end up with a lower probability for girls unless there are infinite parents.

>>8541155
Won't that increase the males because then 50% of families would have only a son and no daugthers while the other 50% would have some daughters and a son? This would make 25% have 1 s 1d which makes 75% 2-1 s-d and then 12.5% 2f 1s which makes 87.5% and so on, which should make the male population a bit higher than the female in the end although not by much. I don't really want to do the math so I'll just assume it will make it something like 55-45 male-female

>>8541881
No it's
50% chance for only a boy
50% chance for one boy and at least one girl

In the first iteration the boys are at an advantage, but the chances for additional girls accumulate so that you end up with 50:50 in the end.

>>8541416
The modern Binding of Issac.

File: dachancesishere.jpg (17KB, 404x292px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 404x292px

>>8541155

50 + infinitesimal

------------------------

50 - infinitesimal

File: callmeeulerjunior.jpg (17KB, 404x292px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 404x292px

>>8541994

first of all: it's 50/50 because the law was just passed.
But seriously, I think that I have to assume that every family will have children until they get a male one because if you didnt do that and integrated over some possibilites of how many children a family might want to have (not sure there) you would get useless results.
So, assuming that each family gets x females and then 1 male and its done, the expected value of females per family is:
K = 0.5^0*0 + 0.5^1*1 + 0.5^2*2 + 0.5^3*3...
the expected number of males per family is just 1, so you only have to evaluate this sum.
I dont know how to properly do this but Ill just try this:
S0 = 0.5^1 + 0.5^2 + 0.5^3... = 1
S1 = 0.5^2 + 0.5^3 + 0.5^4... = S0 - 0.5^1 = 0.5
S2 = ... = S1 - 0.5^2 = 0.25
Sn = 0.5^n

K = S0 + S1 + S2 + S3...
K = S0 + S0
K = 2
Is this wrong? I dont know and Ive never really learned how to formally do this stuff.

>>8541932
Only if there are infinite parents. With a finite amount of parents then you will have more boys because 1/2 of that 50% with a girl will have 1 girl 1 boy, half of the remainder will have less and so on.

>>8541155
Do we force a family to have children until a male child is born or can they theoretically have 8 daughters?

>>8542115
Look up geometric distribution

File: top nep.png (401KB, 500x708px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 500x708px

>>8542220
>geometric distribution

>>8541155
what about twins?

>>8542234
one of them must go

>>8542258
wrong

>>8541155
If each family also has a 50% chance of stopping at each child, then females will easily begin to outnumber males, as intuition would have it.

If so, then what would happen to my wife's son?

>>8542260
I realized that right after I posted
Thanks for clarifying though

>>8541155
Still 50/50 obviously. Half of all children born will still be male regardless of what siblings they have.

>>8542230
What?

>>8542280
geometric is a poor choice in this situation

>>8542236
That actually would skew the ratio towards females. If they simply have to stop having children then but get to keep both males the ratio remains even.

>>8542285
I think it depends on whether the twins are identical or fraternal.

If they're fraternal, you're correct. If they're identical, it doesn't change the ratio.

>>8542289
If all identical female twins survive but half of all identical male twins are killed, more females will survive

>>8542284
No? Geometric literally counts failures before the first success. Assuming it's equally likely to have a boy or a girl the expected value is (1-p)/p=1. So you will have just 1 girl before the first male.

>>8541381
How is that bad? It's not like anyone on 4chan is going to be successful enough to be hurt by those laws.

>>8541393
>Women typically aren't strong enough to kill acting alone.
Uh, what? Yes women are weaker than men, but a lone woman can definitely kill people with weapons (which is how most killings happen these days anyway).

>>8541155

Under some assumptions, it's 50/50.

To take an example, say you only have 16 couples to produce children with in a society. Assume that each couple has as many children as possible and that precisely 50 percent of children are male and 50 percent are female in one generation. No twins or anything like that.

16 couples give birth to one child. 8 are male and 8 are female. The 8 that gave birth to females are permitted to go onto the second generation.

Of this 8, 4 are male and 4 are female, resulting in 12 males total and 12 females. The 4 female-birth families are permitted to a third generation, which will yield 2 boys and 2 girls (on average), and the 2 remaining families will be expected to yield a boy and a girl.

Now the statistics hit you in the face because there is one family left that has a girl. The answer is 2, on average, so that an extra girl comes out.

In the limit as the society becomes infinitely large, it is definitely 50/50.

>>8541155
This is interesting, because a lot of 3rd world asian countries already do something along these lines, but for entirely the opposite reason. Because many of the lower class families want to have boys and not girls, many will have children until they have a boy, and then stop. However, that situation is a bit less pure, and leaves the door open for families to have multiple boys.

>>8542997
And they end up with an excess of boys, because they're more likely to abort girls

I fuck a lot and I hate condoms so I'd say 100:1

File: women-didnt-get-that-way-on-their-own.jpg (71KB, 720x532px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 720x532px

>>8541877
Someone on /sci/ can actually do math!

Well done, sir.

>>8542279
This.
If you were to flip coins in 'families' and always moved on to a new family when you get tails you'd still get the same overall distribution.

Here's an interesting question:
If a policy of "you must stop and only stop having children if you have more girls than boys" is followed, what is the distribution of family sizes?

It's an interesting distribution, because of course half the families will be just one girl, but I ran a simuation and there was a family with 1.3 billion children.

>>8541155
>Half the families (with kids) just end up with a boy.
>25% with a boy and girl.
>12.5% with a 2 girls and a boy.
>etc.
Boys win. The families with girls slides into a regression.

Everyone seems to be assuming that families have the maximum amount of children possible but this is unnecessary. Even if each family has their own limit for how many children they want the result is still 50/50. For families who only want one child it's obvious half will have a boy and half will have a girl. Families that want two kids: half will have only a boy, a quarter will have two girls, and a quarter will have a girl and a boy, which again means 50/50 among those families. This is true for all sets of families who want some number of children or infinite children. Since the ratio is the same across all subsets of families, it must be the same across the entire population. So we get 50/50 regardless of whether families maximize children or not.

Now we can further generalize by saying that there is p(n) chance that a family will have another child after their nth girl. Prove that the distribution will still be 50/50 regardless of p(n)

>>8542264
No they won't. If there is a 50% chance of stopping then the average family will have 1/3 boys and 1/3 girls.

Reminder that if this wasn't immediately obvious to you without doing any calculations you are a brainlet.

The answer is log(2)/2

Let P(n) be the probability of a family having another child after their nth girl.

Then the chance of a family having n girls and a boy is P(0)...P(n) / 2^(n+1)

The chance of a family having n girls and no boy is P(0)...P(n-1) (1-P(n)) / 2^n

Which means the expected number of boys per family is P(0)/2^1+P(0)P(1)/2^2+...

And the expected number of girls per family is after some simplification P(0)/2^1+P(0)P(1)/2^2+...

Thus the ratio remains 1 no matter the behavior of the families.

>>8545077
Actually it's 1/{1-log(2)}

>>8541155
I don't care, the better question is what is the expected number of thirsty sluts I get to shag?

>>8541439
kill every child and try again. too complicated for the law to handle.

>>8545145
Nevermind, it's 1.

Represent the probability of having a female child per generation as an infinite series:
1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16....
This can be represented as: 1+1/(n+1)
As n tends towards infinity the component 1/(n+1) tends towards zero thus:
Over time the number of girl children per boy children tends towards 1.

>>8546693
Sorry, (n+1) should be (n^2)
and that other + should be a -. Getting kinda late.

>>8546698
fuck not n^2, 2^n
I'm going to bed, fuck it

>>8541155
log(2)

File: feminists.png (37KB, 870x558px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 870x558px

>>8544773

Isn't this clear enough yet?

This pic will explain better for all of you. Well thought out, anon.

>>8547528
So regardless of the number of families wishing to have children and the number of children they want the ratio remains 50/50, I must point out.

>>8542295
Blehhhhhh I fucked up and got the geometric distribution mixed up with something else. My bad, sorry

>>8541155
It's not 50/50, you guys seem to forget the reality fact that there's a bigger chance you'll have a male

>>8547558
>Worldwide, there are 107 boy babies born for every 100 girl babies. ... meaning that women are inherently more likely to give birth to boys
http://www.livescience.com/33491-male-female-sex-ratio.html

>>8546693
>autism
You really don't need to do the infinite series to see that it'll be 50/50.

>>8547528
>>8547529
And here is the answer to the general problem >>8545120

Even if families don't know how many children they want, the ratio remains 50/50

>>8547587
You do if you want to answer the question without assuming anything about the behavior of the families.

>>8547528
Actually your picture just gave me an idea for a better solution. Half of all firstborn children will be boys, half of all secondborn children will be boys, etc. Therefore the ratio will remain 50/50

File: iq.png (105KB, 795x697px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 795x697px

>>8541155
I tried to make that problem sound more realistic.

File: 1462938375882.jpg (933KB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

933KB, 2560x1536px

>>8541155
at least post a real question you retard

>>8545120
I'm curious, did you know the answer prior to doing the maths, thus only using the maths to prove your assumption, or did you need to use the maths in order to find the answer? I arrived at the same answer almost immediately based on intuition, but don't have enough knowledge of maths to prove my answer, so I was just wandering which came first for you

if dubs it explodes

>>8547926
No I did not. I worked out the expected number of girls on paper and found that several terms cancel to produce the same as the boys' EV. However the intuitive way of understanding this is >>8547853

>>8548133
interesting