29 Feb
2012
29 Feb
'12
10:57 p.m.
The total in the group, as seen by an outside
observer, was three men
and two women. The men each looked around and saw two men and two
women. The women looked around and each saw three men and one woman.
I had actually figured that out. I was poking mild fun at your saying she saw
three times as many women as men by choosing the non-Occams-razor version of
how to resolve this ambiguity; obviously you meant "three times as many men as
women".
Sorry to be so off-topic. I'll stop now.
-- Alan
On 2/29/2012 9:46 PM, Alan Winston - SSRL Central
Computing wrote:
--
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WINSTON(a)SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
David Harding wrote:
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers Of course, it could just be my biased perception
based on a limited
sample. My wife tells of looking around in her med school lab group and
seeing three times as many women as men. The guys in the group looked
around and saw a perfectly balance group. And, with a mix or three and
two they were all right.
I'm trying to figure out how this story works, and the only way I can
see it being just as you say was if she was a man herself at the time.
-- Alan