It didn't "turn out" to be an auspicious date. They'd already known the date Galileo died. That it even makes the date "auspicious" is debatable. There are only 365ish days to be born on. Repeats aren't a surprise.
It didn't "turn out" to be an auspicious date. They'd already known the date Galileo died. That it even makes the date "auspicious" is debatable. There are only 365ish days to be born on. Repeats aren't a surprise.
Coincidence? I think not. I tried to alert CNN.com to this, but they are apparently hushing it up.
"Now, fast forward five years to 1997, when The Trentonian decided to look up William Figueroa to see how he was doing after his hour of fame.
By then, he was a 17-year-old high school dropout who had fathered a child and was working a low-paying job at an auto showroom."
Yeah, don't call anybody an idiot for a small error...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_paradox
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.birthdayprob.html
Don't tell that to astrologers, otherwise they might make Mars align with Jupiter and that will crash your code with an unknown exception.
So it's about 1%, assuming uniform distribution of birthdays. Since they're not quite uniformly distributed, the actual odds of 60 people with no common birthdays is a little lower than that.
However, given the thousands of people reading HN who experienced such a classroom exercise, the odds are very good that someone like you will pipe up ;-)
I guess you were expecting an algorithm faster than O(n)? That was the best we could do, given n processors with O(1) space each :-D
With that said, I still don't find it to be a big deal that the date lined up with Galileo's death.
Had he been, for example, a ballet dancer it wouldnt have been quite so interesting.
Also, whilst there are 365 days to be born on how many great physicists are there? And how many are born on the centenary of a previous great physicists death? The odds for that is a lot higher than 1/365 :)