The discussion revolves around the implications of using "365.25" instead of "365" in the calculations related to the Birthday Problem. Participants explore the impact of this adjustment on the probability outcomes and consider the suitability of different models for an undergraduate audience.
Participants express differing views on the impact of using "365.25" versus "365" in calculations, with some suggesting it makes little difference while others note significant variations in probability outcomes. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best model to use.
There are limitations related to the assumptions made about leap years and the distribution of birthdays, which may affect the calculations and conclusions drawn from different models.
This discussion may be of interest to educators, students in probability and statistics, and authors involved in writing educational materials on the Birthday Problem and related topics.
It doesn't make a lot of difference, for the obvious reason.Ben2 said:Summary:: Has anyone seen this alternative?
Has any solver replaced "365" by "365.25" in the standard approach? I'm editing a book, and don't want unpleasant surprises when it appears. Please include URRL's and ancillary information. Finally let me apologize to site coordinators if this is off the reservation. Thanks!
The empirical probability would take account of the non-uniform pattern in births throughout the year.Ben2 said:The question is, Which model is simultaneously suitable for an undergrad readership and converges (Law of Large Numbers) to the empirical probability?
Thanks for all comments and references provided.
An interesting consequence of which is that the 13th of the month falls on a Friday a little more often than 1/7.Ben2 said:I was unaware of other leap day rules as posted by fresh_42