Tanya Khovanova's Math Blog

Suppose N mothers live in a city. Half of them have one child and half of them have two children. That means that an average mother has 1.5 children.

Suppose we pick the sexual orientation of every child by rolling dice. Let’s assume that a child has a 10% probability of being homosexual.

The number of mothers with one child who is homosexual is 0.05N. The number of mothers with two children both of them homosexual is 0.005N. The number of mothers with two children with only the first child homosexual is 0.045N, which is the same as the number of mothers of two children with only the second child homosexual. The total number of mothers who have two children with at least one of them homosexual is 0.095N.

Let’s calculate the average fertility of a mother with at least one homosexual child. It is (1*0.05N + 2*0.095N)/(0.05N + 0.095N) = 0.24/0.145 = 1.66. The resulting number — 1.66 — is much bigger than 1.5, the average number of children for a mother.

This means there is a correlation between homosexuality and the fertility of mothers. This suggests that there is a gay gene which at the same time is responsible for female fertility.

But the model is completely random — there can’t be any correlation.

Where is the mistake?

Obviously, you can substitute homosexuality with having blue eyes or math ability or whatever, but I invented this paradox while I was working on my “Fraternal Birth Order Threatens Research into the Genetics of Homosexuality” post. Besides, there is some research on correlation between homosexuality and fertility.

I look forward to your solution to this puzzle.

Three years after I moved to the U.S. and had my second child here, I got an NSF postdoc position at MIT. I had had a long break from my previous research in integrable systems, so I decided to start something new for me — quantum groups. Soon afterwards I invented tetramodules and published a paper about them.

Some time later a friend of mine showed me some papers where my tetromodules had been described long before me. I felt such pain, that I couldn’t work.

I was ashamed that the quality of my paper was compromised. I was very scared that someone might think that it wasn’t original work. I felt worthless for having wasted so much energy on something that was already known.

Afterwards, I discovered that tetramodules appeared in the literature under many other names: bidimodules, Hopf bimodules, two-sided two-cosided Hopf modules, 4-modules, bicovariant bimodules. That meant that many people were reinventing them at the same time. I felt slightly better knowing that I wasn’t alone, but was in fact part of a crowd. Still, my pain impeded my ability to work and do research.

I have just read an article in the New Yorker entitled “In the Air” about some famous discoveries made simultaneously by several people. It made me realize that I am still not over that tetramodules story from 15 years ago.

Being a mathematician requires one to be emotionally strong. You need high self-esteem. Do I need to overcome my emotions or is there a niche for very emotional mathematicians? Perhaps blogging about math is such a niche.

According to a famous study: ” [E]ach older brother increases a man’s odds of developing a homosexual sexual orientation by 28%-48%.”

This means that sexual orientation is not uniquely defined by genes in the way that our blood type is defined. Indeed, if homosexuality was similar to blood type, the probability of giving birth to a homosexual would be the same for the same parents, independently of birth order. Furthermore, the fact that identical twin brothers quite often have different sexual orientation also supports my claim that it isn’t like blood type. On the other hand, there is some research that shows that there is a genetic component to sexual orientation. This might mean that there are genes that increase a predisposition in a man to become gay or it could be that there is a gay gene which determines their homosexuality for some part of the gay population — or both.

The research into a genetic component of gayness shows that there might be some genes in the X chromosome that influence male homosexuality. It also shows that the same genes might be responsible for increased fertility in females.

By the way, this fascinating research provides an explanation of why “gay genes” — if they exist — do not die out, as evolutionary laws might lead us to expect.

The theory that the probability that someone will be gay is dependent on the fraternal birth order impacts in several interesting ways on the whole field of research into the genetics of homosexuality.

Let us create a theoretical model where homosexuals would be born randomly with a fixed probability if they are the first sons of a woman, and increasing probability for subsequent sons. In this model there would be two interesting consequences:

• Mothers of homosexual men would be more fertile on average than mothers of men in general. Remember, this random consequence can be misinterpreted as a genetic correlation between homosexuality and fertility.
• If a homosexual person has a brother, then the probability that this brother is homosexual might be very different from the probability that a random person is homosexual. Again, this might create the suggestion that there is a genetic component, when it is not there.

My point is that all genetics research on homosexuality should take into account these two consequences and adjust for them. That means that it is not enough to show that brothers are more likely to be homosexual in order to prove that there is a genetic component. It needs to show that the correlation between relatives is much stronger than the correlation resulting from the birth order.

For people who are not mathematicians, I will build simple models that illustrate my points. Let us consider some extreme theoretical examples first.

First model. Suppose mothers only give birth to sons and only to one or two sons. Suppose the first son has a zero probability of being gay (which means that first sons are never gay) and the second son has a probability of one of being gay (which means that second sons are always gay). Then all mothers of gay men will have two sons, while mothers of random boys will have somewhere between one and two sons. Another result will be that all gay boys in this model will never have a gay brother.

Second model. Suppose mothers only give birth to one or three sons. Suppose the first son has a zero probability of being gay and the second and the third sons have a probability of one of being gay. Then all mothers of gay men will have three sons, while mothers of random boys will have somewhere between one and three sons. Another result will be that all gay boys in this model will always have a gay brother.

Third model. Let us take some more realistic numbers. Let us consider only the case of women who have one or two boys. Let a be a probability of a woman to have one boy, and correspondingly, 1-a to have two boys. Suppose N is the total number of women in consideration. Suppose x is the probability of the first boy to be homosexual and y is the probability of the second boy to be homosexual. We assume that these probabilities are independent of each other.

Let us first estimate the total number of boys born. It will be aN + 2(1-a)N. The number of homosexuals that are born is expected to be xN + y(1-a)N. The probability of a random boy to be a homosexual is (x + y(1-a))/(2-a).

Let us see what happens with fertility. For a random boy (including both homosexual and non-homosexual boys), what is the average number of sons his mother has? It would be one son for aN boys who are from one-boy families and 2 sons for 2(1-a)N boys who are from two-brother families. Hence a mother of a random boy has on average 2 – a/(2-a) children.

Let’s see what happens with homosexual boys. We have axN homosexual boys from one-brother families and (1-a)(x+y)N gay boys from two-brother families. Hence the average number of sons for their mothers is (axN + 2(1-a)(x+y)N)/(axN+(1-a)(x+y)N) = (ax + 2(1-a)(x+y))/(ax + (1-a)(x+y)) = 2 – ax/(x+y-ay). If we denote by r the ratio y/x, then the result will be 2 – a/(1 + (1-a)r). If r is more than 1, then mothers of gays are more fertile then average mothers. If we assume that y = 1.5x and a = .5, then the average number of sons for a mother of a random boy is 1.667 and for a homosexual boy, it is 1.714, a 3% increase. The impact will be stronger if we take into consideration three-boy families.

Now let us look at brothers in two-son families. There is a total of (1-a)N such families and they have a total of (x+y)(1-a)N gay boys. We have 2xy(1-a)N gay boys who live in families in which both brothers are gay. Hence, the probability of a gay boy who has a brother to have a gay brother is 2xy/(x+y). We saw earlier that the probability of a random person to be gay is: (x + y(1-a))/(2-a).

Let’s look at these numbers more closely. You can easily see that if x = y these two probabilities are the same — as they should be. If x = 0 and y > 0, then a gay person never has a gay brother, suggesting negative correlations with a genetic component. Suppose y = rx, where r is a constant. Then the first number is 2rx/(1+r) and the second number is: x(1+r(1-a))/(2-a). We see that the ratio of these two numbers doesn’t depend on x and is equal to 2r(2-a)/(1+r)(1+r-ar). Suppose r = 1.5, then the ratio is 2.4(2-a)/(5-3a). If a = .5, this ratio is 1.03. So, in this model, for a gay boy who has a brother, the probability that this brother will be gay is 3% higher than the probability that a random man will be gay.

I am so fascinated with the fact that a property that depends on the birth order can create an illusion of a genetic component. I am not discounting the possibility of a genetic component for male homosexuality, but I urge researchers to recalculate their proofs, adjusting for the impact of the fraternal birth order.

To be fair, the female fecundity correlation with male homosexuality was shown not only in mothers of gay men, but also in maternal aunts. Also, the increase in the probability of being gay for a brother of a gay man is very much higher than 3% in my model. That means these researches might survive my critique. Still, they ought to look at their numbers again.

Finally, this discussion is not really about homosexuality, but about any property that depends on birth order. In this case, such a property might imply a genetic component that doesn’t really exist.

The Symmetries of Things by John H. Conway, Heidi Burgiel, and Chaim Goodman-Strauss is out. It is a beautiful edition with great pictures.

The first chapter is very nicely written and might be recommended to high school and undergraduate students. It covers symmetries of finite and infinite 2D objects.

The second chapter adds color to the theory. For beautiful colorful pictures with symmetry, there are two symmetry groups: the group that preserves the picture while ignoring its coloring and the group that preserves the picture while respecting its coloring. The latter group is a subgroup of a former group. This second chapter discusses all possible ways to symmetrically color a symmetric 2D picture. The chapter then continues with a discussion of group theory. This chapter is much more difficult to read than the first chapter, as it uses a lot of notations. The pictures are still beautiful, though.

The third chapter is even more difficult to read and the notations become even heavier. This chapter discusses hyperbolic groups and symmetries of objects in the hyperbolic space. Then the chapter moves into 3D and 4D. I guess that some parts of the second and the third chapters are not meant for light reading; they should be considered more as reference materials.

Here are pictures of a musnub cube (multiplied snub cube), built by John H. Conway. It is an infinite Archimedean polyhedron. The description of it is on page 338 and the diagram is on page 339 of the book. This object was glued together from stars and squares. Each corner of the square is glued to a point of one star and to an inside corner of another star. Mathematically, a star is not a regular polygon. If you look at stars with your mathematical eye, each star in the picture is not just a star, but rather the union of a regular hexagon with 6 regular triangles. That means the list of the face sizes around each vertex of a musnub cube officially is represented as 6.3.4.3.3.

The second picture shows a finished musnub cube. You can’t really finish building an infinite structure. Right? It is finished in the sense that John Conway finished doing what he was planning to do: to construct a part of a musnub cube inside a regular triangular pyramid.

Did I mention that I like the pictures in The Symmetries of Things?

I am now a proud owner of a Zipcard. My old car died a horrible, screaming death recently and I decided to try to go carless as an experiment, hoping to save some money or to lose weight.

Zipcar is the modern way to rent a car. You reserve a car by the hour or by the day through the web, arrive at the site, swipe your card and drive away.

My biggest problem with being a Zipster is that the closest Zipcar location to my home is about one mile away. On second thought, I am losing weight.

But for other Zipsters, the biggest problem is that you have to return the car at the exact location where you picked it up. Obviously, if you allow renters to return their car to a different location the Zipcar company might run out of paid parking spaces in a particular location or, even worse, the cars might migrate to certain places, leaving other locations without any car.

I would like to propose an algorithm that will add some flexibility to where you can return a car, without overwhelming the system.

Here’s how it would work. Suppose we have three cars currently assigned to the Mt Auburn/Homer Ave location. I suggest we name three as a desirable number, but actually allow from three to four cars to be assigned to this location at any particular time.

Now suppose I want to pick up a car at the Mt Auburn/Homer Ave location and to return it to the Somerville Ave/Beacon location. If the number of currently assigned cars to Mt Auburn/Homer Ave location is three (at the lower limit), the Zipcar reservation webpage tells me, “Sorry, you can’t use this location unless you return your car back here,” and shows me the closest location with extra cars. The same goes if the number of assigned cars at the Somerville Ave/Beacon location is at its upper limit. If my starting point has more cars assigned to it than its lowest limit and my destination point has fewer cars assigned to it than its upper limit, then I am allowed to take a car from my starting location and return it to my destination. Zipcar can throw in some financial incentives. If my choice disrupts the most desirable balance of car assignments, I have to pay a fee. If my choice restores the balance, I get a bonus discount.

It would be so cool if zipcars were flexible. I understand that the average cost to the company of parking each car might go up with my flexible algorithm as Zipcar will need more parking spaces than cars. But Zipcar can start implementing this flexibility with a small number of flexible locations. It would be a great feature.

Hey, Zipcar algorithm designers! Can I get a bonus if you implement my algorithm? I can also design a financial incentives formula for you.

I updated my funny pictures page with five new pictures. My new favorites are “Cape Cod Levitation Society” on the left and “Grilled Violators” on the right.

Here I repeat the Conway’s Wizards Puzzle from a previous posting:

Last night I sat behind two wizards on a bus, and overheard the following:

— A: “I have a positive integral number of children, whose ages are positive integers, the sum of which is the number of this bus, while the product is my own age.”
— B: “How interesting! Perhaps if you told me your age and the number of your children, I could work out their individual ages?”
— A: “No.”
— B: “Aha! AT LAST I know how old you are!”

Now what was the number of the bus?

It is obvious that the first wizard has more than two children. If he had one child then his/her age would be the number of the bus and it would be the same as the father’s age. While it is unrealistic, in mathematics many strange things can happen. The important part is that if the wizard A had one child he couldn’t have said ‘No’. The same is true for two children: their age distribution is uniquely defined by the sum and the product of their ages.

Here is a generalization of this puzzle:

Last night I sat behind two wizards on a bus, and overheard the following:

— Wizard A: “I have a positive integral number of children, whose ages are positive integers, the sum of which is the number of this bus, while the product is my own age. Also, the sum of the squares of their ages is the number of dinosaurs in my collection.”
— Wizard B: “How interesting! Perhaps if you told me your age, the number of your children, and the number of dinosaurs, I could work out your children’s individual ages. ”
— Wizard A: “No.”
— Wizard B: “Aha! AT LAST I know how old you are!”

Now what was the number of the bus?

As usual with generalizations, they are drifting far from real life. For this puzzle, you have to open up your mind. In Conway’s original puzzle you do not need to assume that the wizard’s age is in a particular range, but once you solve it, you see that his age makes sense. In this generalized puzzle, you should assume that wizards can live thousands of years, and keep their libido that whole time. Wizards might spend so much of their youth thinking, that they postpone starting their families for a long time. The wizards’ wives are also generalized. They can produce children in great quantities and deliver multiple children at the same time in numbers exceeding the current world record.

Another difference with the original puzzle is that you can’t solve this one without a computer.

You can continue to the next step of generalization and create another puzzle by adding the next symmetric polynomial on the ages of the children, for example, the sum of cubes. In this case, I do not know if the puzzle works: that is, if there is an “AHA” moment there. I invite you, mighty geeks, to try it. Please, send me the answer.

In case you are wondering why the wizard is collecting dinosaurs, I need to point out to you that John H. Conway is a superb puzzle inventor. His puzzle includes a notation suggestion: a for the wizard’s age, b for the bus, c for the number of children. Hence, the dinosaurs.

Everyone agrees that you snore because some muscles at the back of your mouth are too relaxed when you sleep. Back in Russia, I heard about exercises for snorers that strengthen those muscles, but I never heard about them here. That is, until now.

Even medicine in this country is oriented towards making money. Simple exercises do not make much money. Here they offer you many devices and pills and even operations to relieve snoring, but not much in the way of exercise. Recently, though, I heard a very simple idea — sing before going to bed. Singing will help tone your throat muscles.

Some people are making money off of singing, too: check out the Singing for Snorers CD.

I was waiting for a train in Newark. On the platform, there was an LCD screen that flashed advertising. The ad I was staring at was titled, “Reasons to take NJ Transit to Prudential Center, #15.” I was impressed that the NJ Transit sales people were working so hard to invent that many reasons.

I waited for my train for half an hour. It turned out that the NJ Transit advertising people were not working hard after all. The screen was flipping between four reasons, numbered 3, 6, 12 and 15. This is a case of false advertising. You look at reason number 15 and think that there must be a lot of reasons. They fool with your head. Cheaters.

I hope you noticed that I did the same thing with this posting — purely in order to illustrate my point.

Here is my simplified version of Conway’s wizards puzzle.

Last night when I was coming home from my writing class with Sue Katz, I sat behind two wizards on the bus, and overheard the following:

— Wizard A: “I have a positive integral number of children, whose ages are positive integers, the sum of which is the number of this bus, while the product is the amount of dollars I have in my pocket.”

At this point I interrupted the wizard. “Excuse me, professor, I overheard your conversation and can’t resist asking you a question. Usually when a father says ‘my children’ everyone assumes that he has at least two children. Can I assume that?”

— Wizard A: “No. I stated my assumptions up front. A positive integral number of children means one or more.”

I started thinking. If I were to explain this to a non-mathematician who assumes that ‘my children’ means more than one child, I would need to change the wizard’s statement into the following:

“I have at least one child. The ages of my one-or-more children are all positive integers. The sum of the ages of my children or the age of my only child is the number of this bus. The product of the ages of my children or my only child’s age is the amount of dollars I have in my pocket.”

Hmm. I like that mathematicians use ‘my children’ to indicate any number of children. Makes puzzles faster to type.

Anyway, the wizards continued their discussion:

— Wizard B: “How interesting! Perhaps if you told me the number of your children, I could work out their individual ages”
— Wizard A: “No.”
— Wizard B: “Aha! AT LAST I know how many children you have!”

If I were John Conway, I would have asked you next, “What is the number of the bus?” As I am not John Conway, I’ll ask you, “Why do we presume that Wizard A hasn’t cheated on his wife?”

The answer is that all wizards are notorious for making precise statements. If he cheats a lot, he would have started the conversation with, “The number of children I know about is a positive integer.” Or maybe, more discreetly, “My wife and I have a positive integral number of children.”

If you have already figured out the number of the bus, the bonus question is, “Why did I change the ‘age of the first wizard’ in Conway’s original puzzle into the ‘amount of dollars’ in my puzzle?”

When I left the bus, I started wondering why on earth anyone would ever want to sum up the ages of their children. And I remembered that I once did it myself. I was trying to persuade my sister to apply for U.S. citizenship. My argument was that by moving here the life expectancy of her children would increase by 30 years. Indeed, she has two sons and the male life expectancy in Russia and the U.S. has an astonishing 15-year difference. I have to admit that my argument is not very clean, as we do not know the causes for this difference and, besides, the data is for life expectancy at birth and it changes while our kids age. My sister dismissed my argument, saying that the low male life expectancy in Russia is due to alcoholism and that her family is not in the high-risk group.

So, there could be a reason to sum up the ages of your children, but why would anyone ever want to multiply the ages of their children? In any case, if the first wizard continues to keep an amount of dollars equaling the product of the ages of his children in his pocket, his pocket will do better than mutual funds for the next several years.