GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2007-08 > 1186262964
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <>
Subject: Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Events [FPE]
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 22:29:24 +0100
References: <pS3ti.5$08.347@eagle.america.net><mailman.1.1186257965.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com><Ym5ti.8$08.331@eagle.america.net><mailman.3.1186261190.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
The 2% rate is probably far too low when it comes to the General Populace.
What "Experimental Results"?
You are siring potential FPE's?
Must be Great Fun...
DSH
<> wrote in message
news:...
>> You're Welcome...
>>
>> <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>
>>> DSH,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the clarification. I do not claim to be immune from confusion
>>> myself. However, I was talking in terms of simple estimates and I do not
>>> consider the difference between 50% and 64% to be enormous when compared
>>> to other uncertainties in the estimates.
>>
>> That all depends on whether you use the 2% or 5% rate.
>>
>> With 5% we get an FPE rate of 92%
>>
>> Following the meanderings you give us below and taking a 10% FPE rate
>> would give us a p [FPE] of .9948 over the 50 generations you postulate.
>>
>> That's 99.48%.
>>
>> A 30% FPE rate gives us a p[FPE] of 100% over the 50 generations.
>>
>> DSH
>>
>> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> I agree that the more precise calculations are essential for the higher
> rates. However, I was restricting my estimates to the 2% rate because that
> was roughly what was relevant to my experimental results. The estimates I
> gave were adequate for the reasoning I presented.
>
> John
This thread: