8
$\begingroup$

Background

Many people are familiar with the so-called Birthday "Paradox" that, in a room of $23$ people, there is a better than $50/50$ chance that two of them will share the same birthday. In its more general form for $n$ people, the probability of no two people sharing the same birthday is $p(n) = \large\frac{365!}{365^n(365-n)!}$. Similar calculations are used for understanding hash-space sizes, cryptographic attacks, etc.

Motivation

The reason for asking the following question is actually related to understanding a specific financial market behavior. However, a variant on the "Birthday Paradox" problem fits perfectly as an analogy and is likely to be of wider interest to more people with different backgrounds. My question is therefore framed along the lines of the familiar "Birthday Paradox", but with a difference, as follows.

Situation

There are a total of $60$ people in a room. Of these, it turns out that there are $11$ pairs of people who share the same birthday, and two triples (i.e. groups of $3$ people) who have the same birthday. The remaining $60 - 11\cdot2 - 2\cdot3 = 32$ people have different birthdays. Assuming a population in which any day is equally likely for a birthday (i.e. ignore Feb 29th & possible seasonal effects) and, given the specified distribution of birthdays mentioned above, the questioner would actually like to understand how likely (or unlikely) it is that these $60$ people were really chosen randomly. However, I am not sure if the question posed in that way is actually answerable at all. When I posed this question on another site (where it was left unanswered), I was at least advised to re-state the question in a slightly different way, as follows below.

Question

If $60$ people are chosen at random from a population in which any day is equally likely to be a person's birthday, what is the probability that there are $11$ days on which exactly $2$ people share a birthday, two days on which exactly $3$ of them share a birthday, and no days on which $4$ or more of them share a birthday?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm new here. Thanks to those of you who assisted me with editing :-) $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 27, 2014 at 16:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You can use bold for emphasis, instead of ALL CAPS. Just put two asterisks on each side, like **this**. With one asterisk you get italic. $\endgroup$
    – user147263
    Commented Jul 28, 2014 at 1:53

2 Answers 2

5
$\begingroup$

All in terms of binomial coefficients, where $\binom{n}{k}$ is interpreted as the number of combinations of $k$ items from a pool of $n$:

$$\frac{\frac{\binom{60}{3}\binom{365}{1}\binom{57}{3}\binom{364}{1}}{2!}\cdot\frac{\binom{54}{2}\binom{363}{1}\binom{52}{2}\binom{362}{1}\cdots\binom{34}{2}\binom{353}{1}}{11!}\cdot\frac{\binom{32}{1}\binom{352}{1}\binom{31}{1}\binom{351}{1}\cdots\binom{1}{1}\binom{321}{1}}{32!}}{365^{60}}$$

The main numerator counts combinations that lead to the condition that you describe. First decide on three people to have the same birthday and decide what that common birthday is. Then repeat, but divide by $2!$ to account for duplication like where ABC-Jan1-DEF-Feb-1 was counted in addition to DEF-Feb1-ABC-Jan1.

Do a modification of this for the pairs. And then for the singles.

The whole thing can be simplified. It's nice to use multinomial coefficients $\binom{n}{k_1;\;k_2;\;\ldots;\; k_r}=\frac{n!}{(k_1)!(k_2)!\cdots(k_r)!}$ where it is required that $k_1+k_2+\cdots+k_r=n$. I presume that this next line would be the most immediately generalizable form to your actual application.

$$\frac{\binom{60}{\underbrace{3;\;3;}_2\;\underbrace{2;\;\cdots;\;2;}_{11}\;\underbrace{1;\;\cdots;\;1;}_{32}\; }\binom{365}{\underbrace{1;\;1;}_2\;\underbrace{1;\;\cdots;\;1;}_{11}\;\underbrace{1;\;\cdots;\;1;}_{32}\; 320}}{2!\cdot11!\cdot32!\cdot365^{60}}$$

But just in terms of factorials and powers, with low factorials evaluated and one or two other simplifications:

$$\frac{5\cdot59!\cdot364!}{3\cdot2^{12}\cdot320!\cdot(11!)\cdot(32!)\cdot365^{59}}$$

And more simplifications, (just checking how far I can go by hand---there may well be errors below.)

$$\frac{\left(59\cdot58\cdots34\right)\cdot\left(179\cdot178\cdots161\right)\cdot\overbrace{\left(361\cdot359\cdots323\right)}^{\mbox{odds}}\cdot362\cdot208\cdot121\cdot107}{365^{59}}$$

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Incidentally, not all births are equally likely to happen on any given day of the week. Due to C-sections and induced labors being scheduled on weekdays, as well as different stress patterns for different days of the week, more births happen on Monday through Friday than Saturday or Sunday. And there are further differences between the weekdays and between Saturday and Sunday. Coupled with the fact that any specific date of the year is not actually equally likely to fall on each of the seven days of the week, some assumptions used here are not quite reflective of reality. (But are close.) $\endgroup$
    – 2'5 9'2
    Commented Jul 28, 2014 at 1:49
  • $\begingroup$ Actually any specific birthday is equally likely to fall on each of the seven days of the week, unless you expect to have people who were born before 1901 in your sample. That said, there could be non-uniformities based on certain years being more likely than others... $\endgroup$
    – Micah
    Commented Jul 28, 2014 at 3:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Micah Two things: are you considering the cycle of the Gregorian calendar? In its 400-year cycle, Jan 1 will fall on a Monday 56 times, on Sunday 58 times, etc (so--not equally likely). The other thing: If we start considering that no one from 400 years ago is still around, then we should maybe bring in actuarial tables and weight the last 100 or so years and the dates in those years accordingly :) $\endgroup$
    – 2'5 9'2
    Commented Jul 28, 2014 at 3:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm saying that the Gregorian calendar and the Julian calendar have been equivalent (up to a possible shift) since 1901, so the unevenness in the Gregorian calendar isn't an issue for living people. I agree that to really do this right would involve actuarial tables. :) $\endgroup$
    – Micah
    Commented Jul 28, 2014 at 4:30
3
$\begingroup$

The answer is:

$$\frac{365!}{320!365^{60}}\frac{60!}{32!3!3!2!^{11}}\frac{1}{2!11!}$$

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ not enough for an answer $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 28, 2014 at 2:48
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Follows logic by Theophile but corrects multinomial as he forgot 32 in denominator. Must have 32+3+3+2*11=60. And two triples and 11 doubles can be ordered in 2!11! ways. Done. $\endgroup$
    – Mr.Spot
    Commented Jul 28, 2014 at 3:03
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the bonus of lively discussion regarding Gregorian vs Julian calendar, C-section births during the week rather than weekends (presumably because doctors are playing golf). No doubt there is also a birthday bias related to higher conception rates during holidays. However these factors aren't relevant to the actual problem which concerns financial market behavior but the Birthday Paradox is an exact analog and more familiar. Anyway, you guys are a lot more interesting than the other group where I asked the question, and they wouldn't deign to answer because I didn't show python code! $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 28, 2014 at 14:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .