[R] family question

[ben@zoo.ufl.edu]

  OK, I was wrong.  This problem is more interesting (combinatorially and
computationally) than I thought.  I wonder if a "real" combinatorist could
come up with an analytical solution?  Luckily the tail of the distribution
does something understandable (pushes the sex ratio towards 1:1), so we
can guess (unless I'm messing something up again) that as we increase the
maximum family size the sex ratio will actually go towards 1:1.

  However, I do think this is more interesting as a combinatorial and
computational challenge than as a demographic model: the stopping rule is
(I think) a little odd, and the max family size is also (obviously) pretty
large.  Although ... I didn't actually see any systematic effect when I
tried it for max family sizes=5,10,15,20,100 (10000 families) -- maybe I'm
wrong again, and everything cancels out and the expected value really is
equal (??)

  Ben Bolker

-- 
318 Carr Hall                                bolker at zoo.ufl.edu
Zoology Department, University of Florida    http://www.zoo.ufl.edu/bolker
Box 118525                                   (ph)  352-392-5697
Gainesville, FL 32611-8525                   (fax) 352-392-3704

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._