--On Tuesday, June 30, 2020 00:12 -0400 Michael StJohns
<mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> To put some real numbers behind this I grabbed the list, and
> did some consolidation and sorting. There were basically
> only a few companies where I ended up merging things:
> Anything with "Huawei" in the name was Huawei. (Huawei,
> Huawei Technologies, Huawei Tech Dusseldorf, Beijing Huawei,
> Ditto for Google (Chrome, Jigsaw). The remainder of the list
> were slight variants (Cisco vs Cisco Systems, etc) and easy to
> merge. I wasn't sure of whether Futurewei should be grouped
> with Huawei, so I did the calculations both ways.
>
> Taking only the groups with 3 or more volunteers you get:
>
> Cisco - 13 - 8.1% of the pool - 24.2% chance of having 1,
> 65.6% of 2
> Ericsson - 6 - 3.8% of the pool 37.5/26.9
> Futurewei - 10 - 6.3% of pool 31.5/51.5
> Google - 4 2.5% 34.9/14.6
> Huawei - 28 17.5% 3.2/95.9
> Juniper - 10 6.3% 31.5/51.5
> Mozilla - 3 1.9%, 30.9, 9.1
> Nokia - 3 1.9% 30.9/9.1
> ZTE - 6 - 3.8% 37.5/26.9
>
> (Huawei + Future Wei ) 23.8% .6/95.6
>
> Using the current model, Huawei with 17.5% of the pool has
> only a (100 - 95.9 - 3.2) .6% chance of having no volunteers
> selected, a 3.2% chance of having 1, and a 95.9% chance of
> having 2. If Futurewei and Huawei are counted as separate
> companies, together they have about a 50% chance of having 4
> members between them (estimate rather than doing the
> calculations).
>...
Mike, I have read through the above several times, and can't
figure out how, if some organization has a likelihood of having
one person selected, say NN%, that they can have a higher
likelihood, MM%, MM > NN of having two (or more, but that would
be restricted by the current rules) selected. Moreover, even
if I do sampling without replacement such as the first person
selected for that company reduces the size of the pool, I can't
come up with a model that makes MM > NN for some companies but
MM < NN for others.
Am I missing something about either how you are reporting the
results of your calculations or the calculations themselves?
thanks,
john
