>> >for actual birthdays, you need 23 people to get a greater than 50%
>> >chance of a collision, not sqrt(365), which is 19 (though i don't
>> >think i'd bet until you reached 28 people).  19:23 == 0.826.
>
>Actually birthdays (or more precisely the events that lead up to
>them) are actually sufficiently unrandom that the odds with 23
>people are well over 50%

certainly there are characteristics that affect when people are born
(yes, there are a lot less people with a birthday of february 29), but
do you have any hard data that suggests the spread of birthdays over
days of the year is sharply slanted in any direction?

with 23 people, you get 50.73% probability of a collision, as compared
to the 47.57% probability with 22 people.

indeed, with the 28 that i said on which i'd actually consider
betting, you get 65.45%, which is roughly 2:3 in my favor.

the math is simple, if repetitive.  try it.

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
werdna@squooshy.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."