You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

JMiller comments on A Probability Question - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: JMiller 06 December 2012 05:29AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (16)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: JMiller 06 December 2012 06:47:20AM 1 point [-]

Thanks. I see why the probability of H1|o and H2|o need to be taken as 25% each. In that case, it seems like Sarah can say that it is 50% likely a boy and 50% likely a girl (at home). Why is the answer to the question then given as 66%?

Comment author: wgd 06 December 2012 06:54:46AM *  11 points [-]

The standard formulation of the problem is such you are the one making the bizarre contortions of conditional probabilities by asking a question. The standard setup has no children with the person you meet, he tells you only that he has two children, and you ask him a question rather than them revealing information. When you ask "Is at least one a boy?", you set up the situation such that the conditional probabilities of various responses are very different.

In this new experimental setup (which is in very real fact a different problem from either of the ones you posed), we end up with the following situation:

h1 = "Boy then Girl"
h2 = "Girl then Boy"
h3 = "Girl then Girl"
h4 = "Boy then Boy"
o = "The man says yes to your question"

With a different set of conditional probabilities:

P(o | h1) = 1.0
P(o | h2) = 1.0
P(o | h3) = 0.0
P(o | h4) = 1.0

And it's relatively clear just from the conditional probabilities why we should expect to get an answer of 1/3 in this case now (because there are three hypotheses consistent with the observation and they all predict it to be equally likely).

Comment author: JMiller 06 December 2012 07:05:40AM 1 point [-]

That makes a lot of sense, thank you.