>>12236392The problem is that it doesn't 'work'. Like, it seems like someone tries to specifically formulate it to try to get around the ambiguities that naturally arise in the Boy/Girl problem, but it actually ends up being even more vague and ambiguous than the previous problem already is. There's no naturally definite answer to it, because the 'a priori' chances of a given frog croaking in a given time-frame for a given reason are not given.
For instance, if you hear a croak, and turn you head to see two frogs, then the chances of that even happening *might* be twice as likely to occur in the timeframe you're there if they are two frogs of the 'gender that croaks', compared to only one being there. So you can't then reduce the information given to "I see two frogs, at least one of which can croak" and derive probabilities from that. Maybe frogs croak more if they hear other frogs croaking, meaning NOT hearing a given frog croak could give evidence of its gender, or maybe the reverse is true. We don't know, and can't say, because the problem is wide open.
