• otp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I think the question is usually frames as “how many people does it take to make it at least 50% likely that two people will share a birthday”, or more likely than not etc.

      A guarantee would need 366 people. But most people are satisfied with “more likely than not”, “90% chance”, or “99% chance”.

      EDIT: I meant 367, not 366!

      • frongt@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        2 days ago

        366 would not guarantee it. That’s not how probability works. You cannot guarantee a shared birthday without selecting people. And not to mention, birthdays aren’t evenly distributed.

          • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            2 days ago

            366 people wouldnt guarantee no shared birthdays though. There could still be one leap year baby in that bunch. But what are the odds in that?

            2.6 • 10^-158 , if anyone is curious.

            • clif@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              2 days ago

              That sad experiment where 366 people in a room all have the exact same birthday.

              Statisticly unlikely, but definitely possible.

          • frongt@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 days ago

            I misunderstood the scenario. For some reason I was thinking that if you randomly selected people and had a duplicate birthday that’s what you didn’t want.