|
|
|
|
|
by stochastimus
1038 days ago
|
|
I don’t think it’s necessary to invoke epistemic probability to explain why the original question is tricky. At least for me, it helps to notice that if the question were rephrased “the older child is a boy, what is the probability that the younger child is also?”, then the answer would be the intuitive 1/2. You get into this counter-intuitive situation with the question as asked because of the “at least” phrasing - the remaining possibilities in the contingency table can still apply to one, the other, or both children. |
|
If they then say, I have a secret child-ordering X, such that the first in this ordering is a boy, I guess it is now 1/2
However the receiver of 1/3 case knows there exists a secret child-ordering where this is the case.
Weird!