1
$\begingroup$

Can anyone tell me why the calculated birthday match probability is a slightly biased estimator when simulated? Taking a group of 30 people, theory tells us that the probability of at least 2 having the same birthday is 1-(364/365)^(30C2) = 69.68%.

Simulating it in R with the following code:

Nsim <- 1000
Nprop <- 100
Nper <- 30
match.birthday <- numeric(Nprop)
result <- numeric(Nsim)

for (j in 1:Nsim) {
  for (i in 1:Nprop) {
    birthdays <- sample(1:365, size=Nper, replace=T)
    match.birthday[i] <- length(unique(birthdays))
  }
  result[j] <- length(match.birthday[match.birthday < 30])/Nprop
}

hist(result)
SE <- sd(result)/sqrt(Nsim)
mean(result)
mean(result) + 2*SE
mean(result) - 2*SE

The mean is consistently about 70.5% or so with a SE of about 0.15%. Consistently when I run it the probability calculates at about 0.6-0.9% higher than the theoretical value. Anyone any idea why this is? Have I something wrong with my code?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To what "theory" are you referring? The formula is not correct. This is obvious, because when applied to a sample of 366 it still gives an answer less than $1,$ although it is certain in such cases that two people will share a birthday. See stats.stackexchange.com/questions/22009/…. $\endgroup$ – whuber Nov 7 '18 at 18:24
  • $\begingroup$ FYI there is a pbirthday function in R, which calculated a prob of 70.6% $\endgroup$ – Dave2e Nov 7 '18 at 18:25
  • $\begingroup$ @whuber - many thanks!! excuse my error but I was misled by this website betterexplained.com/articles/understanding-the-birthday-paradox and thought it had the theory right. I never thought of trying it with 366 persons. :-( Of course the answer is 70.63% and my simulation is bang on with the correct answer nearly always within +/- 2*SE of the estimate. $\endgroup$ – Joe H Nov 7 '18 at 20:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ My jaw dropped when I read that page, but it (partially) rescued itself at the section beginning "Remember how we assumed birthdays are independent? Well, they aren’t." Take a look at what follows. $\endgroup$ – whuber Nov 7 '18 at 20:49
1
$\begingroup$

It was answered by whuber above. The theory I had was wrong and the theoretical value is 1-(365P30)/365^30 = 70.63%. The estimate through simulation is unbiased!!

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Please note that this is not an "estimate" in the usual statistical sense: it is purely a probability calculation. It requires no data. $\endgroup$ – whuber Nov 7 '18 at 20:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @whuber the 'estimate' was a reference to the simulation not the calculation. The simulation does use simulated data to calculate the statistic. Is that not an estimate? $\endgroup$ – Joe H Nov 7 '18 at 20:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.