Timeline for Chances of meeting people who's initials contain a J
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Dec 11, 2016 at 22:24 | comment | added | Pere | Actual frequencies of male given names in the 1990 US census can be found at names.mongabay.com/male_names.htm | |
| Feb 14, 2012 at 14:35 | comment | added | Vladtn | You're right, and I guess that the more experienced you are the more assumptions get realistic. The tradeoff is between getting a sense of what the solution might look like and doing the research, which is not justified when the question is of anecdotal interest only. Something akin to estimates and order-of-magnitude calculations in engineering. | |
| Feb 13, 2012 at 23:30 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackStats/status/169201833842180096 | ||
| Feb 13, 2012 at 22:51 | comment | added | whuber♦ | It seems to me that you systematically replace information that could be obtained from data by assumptions that have little or no objective support, including the assumed probability distribution, that you meet people at random, that names are assigned independently, that you can ignore the J's in the next 992 names, etc. This kind of exercise can be useful to get a sense of what a solution might look like and what assumptions are important to verify, but it's unrealistic to suppose that the actual chances you obtain can be trusted. | |
| Feb 13, 2012 at 20:33 | answer | added | John Doucette | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 13, 2012 at 15:49 | history | asked | Vladtn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |