Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site charm.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!mhuxj!mhuxi!charm!mam From: mam@charm.UUCP (Matthew Marcus) Newsgroups: net.misc Subject: Re: Horses vs. Currant Buns: a query Message-ID: <279@charm.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Mar-84 14:23:51 EST Article-I.D.: charm.279 Posted: Mon Mar 19 14:23:51 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Mar-84 05:55:35 EST References: <712@seismo.UUCP> Organization: Physics Research - AT&T Bell Labs MH Lines: 43 Seismo!flinn divides people into two classification, which I will call H and C, for reasons clear in the basenote. He then asks why most married couples comprise an H and a C, rather than two H's or two C's. Since he posted this to net.misc, I assume he thinks there is some non-statistical reason for this. I will show that his observation can be explained by random association given certain simple assumptions: Let x be the probability that a man is in class C. Let y be the probability of a woman being a C. Now we make a table: Couple probability Both C xy Both H (1-x)(1-y) M=C,W=H x(1-y) M=H,W=C y(1-x) Then, let D=Pr(M<>W)-Pr(M=W), where M,W refer to male, female members of a couple, relational operators refer to membership in the C or H classes, and Pr(c) is the probability of condition c being true. Seismo!flinn's observation is that D>0. Now, with the above table, we find that D=2x+2y-4xy-1 Substitute x=(w+1)/2, y=(z+1)/2, and get D = -wz . which shows that if x-1/2 and y-1/2 are of different signs, then flinn's observation follows. There is an assumption here that there is no correlation between one's own type and the type you will get married to. The final result is: If {seismo!flinn's observation} THEN { If {random chance applies to marriages viz. H, C classes} THEN { one sex shows an excess of C and the other an excess of H } ELSE { C-type men prefer H-type women, or vice-versa } } ELSE { Much time has been wasted } {BTL}!charm!mam "why isn't this in net.math?"