mscroggs.co.uk
mscroggs.co.uk

subscribe

Blog

"Uncanny" royal coincidence

 2013-07-24 
A news story on the BBC Website caught my eye this morning. It reported the following "uncanny coincidence" between a Northern Irish baby and a Royal baby:
But both new mothers share the name Catherine, the same birthday - 9 January - and now their sons also share the same birth date.
I decided to work out just how uncanny this is.
The Office for National Statistics states that 729,674 babies are born every year in the UK. This works out at 1,999 babies born each day, assuming that births are uniformly distributed, so there will be approximately 1,998 babies who share Price Nameless's birthday.
So, what is the chance of the mother of one of these babies having the same birthday as Princess Kate? To work this out I used a method similar to that which is used in the birthday "paradox", which tells us that in a group of 23 people there is a more than 50% chance of two people sharing a birthday, but that's another story.
First, we look at one of our 1,998 mothers. The chance that she shares Princess Kate's birthday is 1/365 (ignoring leap days). The chance that she does not share Princess Kate's Birthday is 364/365.
Next we work out the probability that none of our 1,998 mothers shares Princess Kate's birthday. As our mothers' birthdays are independent we can multiply the probabilities together to do this (this is why we are looking at the probability of not sharing a birthday instead of sharing a birthday). Our probability therefore is \(\left(\frac{364}{365}\right)^{1998} = 0.00416314317\).
Back to the original question, we wanted to know the probability that one of our mothers shares Princess Kate's birthday. To calculate this we do take 0.00416314317 away from 1. This gives 0.99583685682 or 99.6%.
There is a 99.6% chance that there is a resident of the UK who shares the same birthday as Princess Kate and had a child on the same day.
Uncanny.
But let's be fair. The mother in our story is also called Kate. So what are the chances of that? In fact, the same method can be followed, working with the probability of having neither the same birthday or name as Princess Kate.
I think it is safe to assume that this would still be considered news-worthy if our non-princess was called Katie, Cate, Cathryn, Katie-Rose or any other name which is commonly shortened to Kate, so I included a number of variations and used this fantastic tool to find the probability of a mother being called Kate. The data only goes back to 1996, but as the name is dropping in popularity, we can assume that before 1996 at least 1.5% of babies were called Kate. Disregarding males, we can estimate that 3% of mothers are called Kate.
If anyone would like the details of the rest of the calculation, please comment on this post and I will include it here. For anyone who trusts me and isn't curious, I eventually found that the probability of none of our 1,998 mothers share the same name and birthday as Princess Kate is 0.84855028964. So the probability of another Kate having a child on the same day and sharing Princess Kate's birthday is 0.15144971035 or 15.1%. Just over one in seven.
So this is as uncanny as anything else which has a probability of one in seven, such as the Royal baby being born on a Monday (uncanny!).

Similar posts

World Cup stickers 2018, pt. 3
World Cup stickers 2018, pt. 2
A bad Puzzle for Today
A 20,000-to-1 baby?

Comments

Comments in green were written by me. Comments in blue were not written by me.
 Add a Comment 


I will only use your email address to reply to your comment (if a reply is needed).

Allowed HTML tags: <br> <a> <small> <b> <i> <s> <sup> <sub> <u> <spoiler> <ul> <ol> <li>
To prove you are not a spam bot, please type "prime" in the box below (case sensitive):

Archive

Show me a random blog post
 2020 

Feb 2020

PhD thesis, chapter ∞
PhD thesis, chapter 5
PhD thesis, chapter 4
PhD thesis, chapter 3
Inverting a matrix
PhD thesis, chapter 2

Jan 2020

PhD thesis, chapter 1
Gaussian elimination
Matrix multiplication
Christmas (2019) is over
 2019 
▼ show ▼
 2018 
▼ show ▼
 2017 
▼ show ▼
 2016 
▼ show ▼
 2015 
▼ show ▼
 2014 
▼ show ▼
 2013 
▼ show ▼
 2012 
▼ show ▼

Tags

hats captain scarlet phd mathsteroids ucl bodmas reddit wool harriss spiral games dragon curves data preconditioning european cup triangles manchester martin gardner javascript estimation mathslogicbot graph theory radio 4 sport nine men's morris folding paper coins boundary element methods tmip menace go tennis royal baby bubble bobble golden ratio inline code statistics logic hexapawn dataset pac-man plastic ratio matrix multiplication trigonometry folding tube maps books sound christmas card noughts and crosses numerical analysis accuracy matrix of cofactors binary oeis probability gaussian elimination news manchester science festival chess approximation programming countdown arithmetic realhats gerry anderson misleading statistics rugby big internet math-off polynomials chalkdust magazine flexagons the aperiodical palindromes machine learning national lottery pizza cutting determinants braiding hannah fry chebyshev matrix of minors asteroids fractals wave scattering signorini conditions python geometry bempp london underground sobolev spaces sorting platonic solids propositional calculus world cup craft frobel simultaneous equations christmas puzzles final fantasy error bars dates data visualisation cambridge pythagoras latex raspberry pi twitter cross stitch map projections london golden spiral talking maths in public ternary computational complexity inverse matrices php advent calendar finite element method royal institution interpolation curvature draughts football matt parker game show probability light people maths game of life matrices reuleaux polygons speed weather station weak imposition rhombicuboctahedron electromagnetic field mathsjam stickers video games a gamut of games

Archive

Show me a random blog post
▼ show ▼
© Matthew Scroggs 2012–2020