Ok, obviously the chances of having a single child of a given gender are roughly 50/50. However, if you have three children and the first two are F, does it become statically more likely to produce a male with the third child? I understand the events are independent, so, it shouldn’t, however, I am curious how set theory applies in this case. The same could be said about flipping a coin, two heads in a row…the third flip should be 50/50, but does set theory apply in this case?
In: 0
What do you mean by “does set theory apply”? What do you expect it to do?
Set theory applies to sets. It describes relationships between sets, among other things. You’ll need to clarify how you expect it to influence the gender of a baby
Two heads previously doesn’t affect flipping the coin a 3rd time. Outcome will still be 50% still.
> does it become statically more likely to produce a male with the third child?
No. The odds are still 50:50. You’re equally likely to have a boy or a girl. This is the gambler’s fallacy, thinking that the universe needs to “self-correct” to maintain the ratio. It doesn’t. It will naturally over hundreds and thousand of babies converge upon 50:50 (or whatever the true average is because iirc I think it’s slightly biased towards boys), but if there happen to be more girls than boys or more boys than girls then the universe won’t try to birth more of the minority.
Being independent, the probability of a third head after two consecutive heads is 50/50. But the probability of the first two being heads was one-in-four. When that happens, the mind tends to conflate the notion of potentially being in the midst of a one-in-eight event with the next flip being a 50/50 that only happens after a one-in-four event has occurred.
Nobody becomes interested in the third flip being heads if the prior flips were both tails or one of each, because it isn’t a run. But statistically it’s all the same.
Latest Answers