Is the Official Google Answer to this Controversial Interview Question Correct?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter DeDunc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Google Interview
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around a controversial Google interview question regarding the expected fraction of female births in a hypothetical country where couples continue having children until they have a son. Participants debate the implications of the "stopping rule" on the expected gender ratio of births, with various interpretations and mathematical approaches presented.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that since each birth is independent and has a 50/50 chance of being male or female, the expected fraction of female births remains 0.5.
  • Others challenge this view, suggesting that the stopping rule alters the expected gender ratio, leading to a different interpretation of the question.
  • A participant references Steven Landsburg's argument and claims he is incorrect, suggesting that his logic fails to distinguish between the average fraction of girls per family and the overall population fraction.
  • Another participant provides a mathematical model to illustrate the expected outcomes based on the stopping rule, leading to confusion about the correct interpretation of the results.
  • Concerns are raised about the application of probability theory to real-world scenarios, questioning whether the assumption of unbiased births is valid.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about their own calculations and reasoning, indicating a lack of consensus on the mathematical approach to the problem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the interpretation of the question and the implications of the stopping rule on the expected fraction of female births.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the assumptions made about the independence of births and the applicability of statistical models to real-world scenarios, indicating that the discussion is influenced by differing interpretations of the problem's parameters.

  • #31
So DH are you saying, if I take up the bet with him.

a) I would expect to win if I call him on his maths- as the only answer- even in this restricted sense is 0.5

b) I would expect to win if I call him on his interpretation of the problem.

He is offering a quite substantial bet on both options.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
You should expect to lose if you take him up on his terms. He has redefined the problem to be something other than that asked by the question. In other words, he is cheating.

Cheating, by the way, is yet another way to make a martingale have an outcome that differs from what probability theory says it should be.
 
  • #33
Thanks DH

But he says he is willing to make a bet to show that most stats professors will define/interpret the puzzle in the way that he has.

From discussions on here, would you not say I would have more than evens chance of winning
 
  • #34
I really don't want to get involved in and I don't really care about this imbroglio. Some supposedly brilliant scientist is wrong and is strong-headedly digging himself a grave about being right. So what else is new? Have at it if you do.
 
  • #35
If you want to make a bet with him, make a bet with him. But this is starting to turn into "but he said so!".

Let me also point out again that this same argument applies to lottery tickets. I wouldn't try to get $15,000 out of my colleagues, where it's dependent on interpretation. I'd just get it out of the state lottery office, where they cannot argue about whether you are holding a winning ticket.
 
  • #36
Thanks Guys. Your contributions have been very helpful.

As Vanadium suggests, it does look like a martingale.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
7K
  • · Replies 96 ·
4
Replies
96
Views
11K
  • · Replies 83 ·
3
Replies
83
Views
13K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
16K