Well said. What they don't teach you in school is that the equations are easy - framing the problem is the hard part.Saskwach post=18.73797.809862 said:They're not tricks: they're tests of whether you can determine from the information you're given specifically what kind of statistics problem you have on your hands. Real world stats problems won't kindly tell you what probability distribution you should use - poisson, normal, binomial, exponential, etc. Half of what you're taught in (good) probs and stats classes is what elements you should look for in any given problem to find the solution. If, to return to probability distributions, you're told that you're looking at a continuous set of variables (as in the numbers are not discrete - there are no jumps in value, so, say, every whole number) you know that poisson and binomial distributions are immediately off the table.Shivari post=18.73797.809797 said:But it's independent from the other one. It's a stupid trick.werepossum post=18.73797.809779 said:But the probability of the set of both coin tosses follows a rigid structure. Knowing one coin's result changes the probability of the other coin's result.
Or this might be way over my head and I should just leave. I take it you learn these evil and useless tricks in later years.
What else are you told, though? Are we mapping growth in population? Then it's exponential distribution you want. Now kindly start using the equations we've given you for exponential probability distributions.
My Year 12 Probs and Stats unit was practically made on these "trick" questions. You were given a written explanation of the problem, but not told what type of problem it was; if you couldn't figure that out then you didn't know the subject anyway, and didn't deserve the marks.
NewClassic, the problem assumes a 50-50 distribution between sexes; without that assumption the problem is indeterminate. Therefore there is no difference between same and different mothers. The only reason the odds change is because the two are a set and you have gained additional information about that set.
EDIT: If it's not obvious, the two beagle pups are considered a set ONLY because they were selected together without knowing their sexes; even if they are from the same mother, the distribution of sexes within the set of two pups is considered random. The distribution of puppy sexes therefore follows a known distribution function, namely a 50% chance for either sex. That allows us to make more educated guesses as we gain additional information, a function which clearly approaches unity. When we know nothing of either pup, the second pup has a 50% chance of being male; we can guess no better. When we are holding both pups, each's chance of being male is still 50%, but because we have gained additional information (i.e. physical examination) we can determine each pup's sex with certainty. Between these two extremes is an area where, as we learn more about the two pups, we can make better guesses as to the sex of the second puppy.