Can you solve this riddle Sup Forums?

Can you solve this riddle Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1/2_+_1/4_+_1/8_+_1/16_+_⋯
dictionary.com/browse/bear?s=t
pzl.jp/en/q1
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It does not.

Yes, some people are more prone to have female children, others more prone to have male children, so it sort of works

No, because he is the King of Japan, where nobody has children.

>sort of works

You need a more definitive answer

it did not

no, if we suppose that the chance of having a male or famale child is 50% and that every family would have child until they are not allowed anymore than every family would get 1 son while only half of the families would have a daughter

Kek

A family could choose to stop having children before they have a son, leaving them with only daughters.

>Did his plan work?
How would I know? I don't have any records of the aftermath. It might have worked.

It works if the families who want more children kill their firstborn baby if it's a boy

isn't this the way Chinamen do it? Don't they kill their sons or something?

What a dumb king, just kill one in every two boys then you've halved the male population

No you got it mixed up they kill the daughters because they're completely worthless compared to the sons. This question is retarded

LADY LAYTON WHEN

this

it the plan worked than it wouldn't be a puzzle, so i'd say that it didn't work.

those who chose to stop having children have a distribution of 50/50

no, this would lower both the amount of women and mens because this would just make half the families unable to have more than 1 child, rateo of women/men would remain the same because it's random

gender is a social contract, so even if the baby has a penis they're not necessarily a boy.

I don't think it would work.

Family wants 1 child:
>50% chance of 1 son
>50% chance of 1 daughter

Family wants 2 children:
>50% chance of 1 son
>25% chance of 1 son 1 daughter
>25% chance of 2 daughters

Family wants 3 children:
>50% chance of 1 son
>25% chance of 1 son 1 daughter
>12.5% chance of 1 son 2 daughters
>12.5% chance of 3 daughters

And so forth. Obviously, there's always a big chance that you'll either have just 1 son, or that you'll have as many sons as daughters. In the latter case the plan doesn't help, while in the former case the plan backfires entirely.

No
the reason is that they currently are more prone to give birth to boys. If they have a boy, they are not allowed to have more kids at all.
odds are that giving up on the first boy, results in less women overall.

ok we figured it out, give us another

No. There's always a chance of twins, triplets, etc. all being boys.

Of course not. Even assuming that every family continued to have children until their first son, that still means statistically half the families would only have only one male child. That means that the other half would need at most 2 daughters, for both other family's sons and their own, to make up the difference. However, the process just repeats because half families without sons would wind up with sons on their second try meaning the the families with two daughters now have to keep trying and the process just repeats.

This is all assuming, for the sake of a puzzle, the people don't just stop having children. This puzzle just creates a loop where there's always more men than women.

The most disturbing part of this hypothetical is an aveage number of 2 children - not enough to sustain a society without modern medicine where the death of infants and children was far more common than today. But by the numbers it will increase the female-to-male ratio.

>by the numbers it will increase the female-to-male ratio
except it won't even do that.

Reminds me of those Pokemon cards where you flip a coin and deal damage until you get tails.
You end up getting tails first.

This would lead to parents killing first born males.

Population would continue however because boys would still exsist, would be youngest or middle children.

It could potentially bump up the population of the female population short term, but eventually people would start having on average a boy and a girl at least. Enough to replace the parents

It depends on the intent of "the kingdom needed more women". If the percentage of the population of men vs women matters, it works. If the total number of women matters, it actually hurts.

>If male, stop

>If female continue.

That means that if every family pops out babies until they can't anymore, there will be families with streaks of girls, but never a family with more than one boy. That means each man can only replace himself once, while each female can replace herself many times.

Even though the chances are 50/50 or so, there will be more women due to the possibility of streaks. However, with less overall children (since families that stop after 1 son even if they WOULD have many more kids) there will also be less overall women.

>there will be more women due to the possibility of streaks
Not really. You're guaranteed 1 boy per family, but you're not guaranteed any girls (if the first one is a boy). While long streaks do happen sometimes, they're relatively rare and don't skew the final result as much as the guaranteed 1 boy in every single family does.

the correct answer

All i know is that it would produce a lot of trannies

>people have sons but they want more kids, so they raise their sons as girls
>half the kingdom's males grow up to be traps
>mfw

Families that want a daughter will get rid of the first son before they are born (or when they are born) though. We already see this in RL China.

This

We can assume a country with such a eugenics program also follows other ass-backwards traditions like putting lineage on the male side. This probably won't happen since sons are valued, if anything daughters will be killed anyway for parents that only want a son but get a daughter.

It does NOT work.
If every family has to stop when having a son, every single family will have a son, but not all families will have daughters. That's assuming 50/50 chance for boy and girl.

Even if some families have more than one girl before having a boy, the chance for that is smaller the more girls they have, and it does NOT compensate the families having firstborn boys.

Post the answer dickhead

think about it like. this. If each family had all of eternity to shit out kids until they had a son, virtually every single family is guaranteed to have a son. But families who had a son first would be guaranteed to never have a daughter.

The king's law guarantees sons but does not guarantee daughters. More sons than daughters would be born under the law.

...

that depends if this is a country where 1-2 children are the norm, or 3 or more are the norm. Given that this is a country with a powerful king, it is probably a more rural nation where most families have three kids or more is normal. If each family normally has three or more kids the decree would work. If one or two kids are normal, the decree would not work.

Assuming families can have infinite children, and will only stop once they have a son, and that the land has infinite population:
>100% of families have a son
>50% of families have a daughter
>25% of families have another daughter on top of that
>12.5% of families have ANOTHER daughter on top of THAT
etc.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1/2_+_1/4_+_1/8_+_1/16_+_⋯

Thus, if the assumptions above all hold, there will theoretically be an equal amount of sons and daughters. Because it is ludicrous to take these assumptions as given, there will be more sons than daughters.

Mathematically, it wouldn't work anywhere. If you can extrapolate things to infinity like that, and have one result approach a 100% chance over another, then it means that outcome has a higher probability than the other, and will be the most likely outcome at any finite range of numbers where the rule applies. Whether the number is a norm of 2 kids per family or 200 kids per family, it's more likely for the law to have the opposite affect than what was intended.

but what about the 0.000000001% families that have an infinite number of daughters?

>Because it is ludicrous to take these assumptions as given, there will be more sons than daughters.

There could just as easily be more daughters than sons.

But otherwise yeah, the puzzle is bullshit because it doesn't say that families can't choose to stop having kids, which would skew it in favor of girls.

I'm not extrapolating to infinity though, when I say more than three I don't mean 200, there are plenty of places where 5 or 6 kids is normal

For a country's population to be exactly stable the birth rate has to be only 2.1, ANY number higher than that will make it work. As long as the coutnry in question is not a first world one it will work.

The post you replied to did.

It would be entirely possible through some lucky roll of the dice for more daughters to be born than sons, but the more likely outcome is for there to be more sons than daughters

For every family that stops before they have a son there's another family that stops and loses out on more daughters. I think it evens out, especially since if you expect families to stop after 2-3 daughters you lose out on the infinitesimally small population who would be churning out ladies to make up for everyone else.

Everyone dies out due to not enough people being born.

If people didn't divorce or have kids outside marriage they have on average less than 2 children, and 2 people are needed to make a child.

Until everyode dies the PERCENTAGE of females increases for sure

You can see this happens by getting a calculator and doing

(1*0.5)+(2*0.5^2)+(3*0.5^3)+(4*0.5^4)......... for infinity

The result is clearly less than 2 so the population isn't stable.

Extrapolating this:
Let's assume the average family stops at 1 kid. Then we have a 50/50 split.

If the average family wants 2 kids, 50% of them will have to stop at a son and 50% of the remainder will have one of each. That's 75% of the population with a son, 25% with one daughter, and 25% with two daughters. Again, that evens out to one son per daughter.

If the average family wants 3 kids, we have
>87.5% families have sons
>25% have 1 daughter
>12.5% have 2 daughters
>12.5% have 3 daughters
25 + 2(12.5) + 3(12.5) = 87.5
Again, a 50/50 split.

It's not hard to see how this extrapolates to infinity (the case wherein no family stops until they receive a son). The problem is that, since you don't know whether your next child will be a son or daughter, choosing to stop changes nothing.

It doesn't. If the families keep having children until they have a son. It will be roughly 50%.

Every iteration, 50% would be boys and 50% would be girls. The chance of a family have a ridiculous amount of girls to skew this is statistically insignificant. But a family choosing to stop having children is very likely.

So first three scenarios in which every couple births until boy would be
B
G - B
G - G -B

Only one of those scenarios increases the ratio in favour of girls, and it's the most unlikely to happen I think, and if seems only more unlikely going past that.

Although there's of course probably 100 factors I'm missing

Not less women, just less births.

>Henceforth, upon the birth of a son a family shall bear children no more!"

It’s simple. You just break this down to conditions.
>upon the birth of a son
If a son is born
>a family shall bear children no more
Then the family no longer has children.

So, if a son is born the condition is true and the family will no longer bear children. Meaning they lose their child(ren). By this system only girls could be raised or no children at all.

So yes, the King’s plan works. Very well actually.

...

>and the family will no longer bear children. Meaning they lose their child(ren).

"Bear" just means to give birth to, user. Nobody loses their existing kids.

Yeah but in that case the daughters would be killed even without the law.

"birth" was already used in the sentence. The use of "bear" instead would mean a different meaning than birth.

Oops, my calculation was off, you're right.
Maybe. However, there has always been an advantage to having a son compared to having a daughter in medieval times. Not just for the higher strength of body, which is useful for farm work or warring, and everywhere the custom of dowry exists. For most households, a son is a net gain, a daughter is a net loss.

No it wouldn't. The sentence literally just says that once you give birth to a son you can't give birth to anyone anymore. There is no rule in the English language against using synonyms.

dictionary.com/browse/bear?s=t

And bear has multiple meanings.

To bear children can mean to raise them also.

>>To bear children can mean to raise them also.
Literally nobody uses that meaning in reference to children.

I linked you the definition. Please read it. Your interpretation is not on the list. If you wish to defend your interpretation, please provide some published example of its use.

Even if they're born a boy then can still be female (male).
(boy)pussy is just as good.

>2,support.
"walls that cannot bear a stone vault"
synonyms: support, carry, hold up, prop up
"will it bear his weight?"
take responsibility for.
"no one likes to bear the responsibility for such decisions"

Right, and none of those are ever used in reference to raising children. "Raise" is used in reference to raising children.

Somehow Sup Forums's capacity for wilful misinterpretation still manages to surprise me. Well done.

Are you familiar with abortion?

Yeah, population of girls will aproach 66% and not 50%.

>support
Clearly used in a literal sense, going from the sentence used and the synonyms provided. "Support" has multiple meanings too, you seem to be the expert on this so you should know. :^)

>take responsibility for
If your mother ever had to tell someone that she "took responsibility for" you, you probably have some mental deficiency and I am sorry for making fun of you.

I will impart an additional lesson on you. The etymology of the phrase "bear children" comes from the definition of "bear" as in "to carry". The term "carry a child" is also in use as a reference to birth (and not to raising).

I want to fuck those girls

Projection the post.

it doesnt because birth is still (presumably) a 50/50, all measures go both ways.

If you kill all male children or send them to military, yes.

Assuming every couple breeds until unable to due to law and probability of girl vs boy is 0.5 (which it's not)

Model: sum(((0.5^x)*(x-1)) - (0.5^x)), x from 1 to n. Positive means more girls, negative means less girls. 1 means all girls, -1 means all boys

Series converges at 0, meaning equal outcome. Notable is that the series is actually negative before it reaches infinity, meaning that any human limits (such as not being able to breed for 60 years in a row) will result in LESS girls.

>Layton thread
>77 replies in and nobody has posted more puzzles
Sup Forums is truly dead.

i make a simulation with python

Solve this fag

Does it count as a new family if the daughter/son gets married? If not, then no more babbies ever.

If so, depends on how many kids people have before they pop out a son

These puzzles are shit anyways

pzl.jp/en/q1

I only have the goat door one

easy, look at ground for cracker crumbs

good bird always gets crackers

God mode is easily solved by asking one of the birds what the opposite is of the answer he'd usually give.

I'm not sure if God Slayer is even possible.

Wouldnt that cause a paradox for the lying parrot. Because he would lie about his lie. Which forces him to lie

...

No, because every childbirth is statistically independent, under an assumption of perfectly random sex.

>mfw all of Sup Forums is sitting around doing maths

The answer the lie parrot would normally give to the question "which is the door to heaven" would be him telling you to go to the door that is actually hell. By asking him for the opposite of his normal answer, you get him to tell you the correct door. The problem with this is that if you asked the truth bird to give you the opposite answer he normally would, he would tell you the hell door, so that question is the wrong one.

nevermind I'm retarded. The lying bird would lie about what the opposite answer is, so the door he tells you to go in would be the hell door. So you ask "What is the opposite of the answer you would give to the question 'Which is the door to heaven?'?" and then do the opposite.

Ask either bird "Which door did I come through".

If the bird answers correctly then it's the bird that tells the truth.

Ask the other bird "Which is the door to Heaven?" Go to the opposite door.

Otherwise if the bird answer incorrectly to "Which door did I come through".

Ask the other bird "Which is the door to Heaven?" Go to that door.

God mode: "Assume there's an entity that behaves quite like you, but when asked a binary question gives the answer you wouldn't give. If I asked them 'which door leads to heaven', what would they answer?"

In other words, find a way to describe the other bird to the one you're talking to.

...

>literally proving you were going to samefag
nice

No, the lying bird won't give you the opposite answer. He'll give you the normal answer, because he's lying that it's the opposite. Only the truthful bird will truthfully tell you the opposite of his usual answer. So both birds will point you to hell. It's the same as the conventional solution except you cut out the middle man.

One question to one bird. Lrn2read

You accidentally the answer doo doo head

What does "family" encompass?

Deepest lore