c4countdown

Couple defies huge odds after all their children born at 7.43

A couple are celebrating after their third child was born at 7:43 - exactly the same time as their two older children were born, several years apart.

According to hospital records, all three siblings from Salford, Greater Manchester, were coincidentally born at 7:43 - beating odds of 300 million to one.

The rare occurrence comes after parents Matt Rigby and partner Lowry Dairsley celebrated the arrival of Harrison at 7:43am on 20 January.

Harrison's older sisters Ella and Evie were born at 7:43am in October 2005 and 7:43pm on Boxing Day 2007.

Edit: ah actually it looks like they've copied the "odds" from The Sun.

Jon Corby wrote:Couple defies huge odds after all their children born at 7.43

A couple are celebrating after their third child was born at 7:43 - exactly the same time as their two older children were born, several years apart.

According to hospital records, all three siblings from Salford, Greater Manchester, were coincidentally born at 7:43 - beating odds of 300 million to one.

The rare occurrence comes after parents Matt Rigby and partner Lowry Dairsley celebrated the arrival of Harrison at 7:43am on 20 January.

Harrison's older sisters Ella and Evie were born at 7:43am in October 2005 and 7:43pm on Boxing Day 2007.

Edit: ah actually it looks like they've copied the "odds" from The Sun.

Ooh brilliant. This is easy stats article fodder. The Sun had a very similar article about three children who were born on 08/08/08 09/09/09 and 10/10/10 (or similar), and again went with "beating the odds" like it was some weird necessity or something.

Edit: So I'm confused. Have they done 1440^3 and missed off a zero? Or something else doubly wrong? I can't work out how you get 300 million from this.

Michael Wallace wrote:Edit: So I'm confused. Have they done 1440^3 and missed off a zero? Or something else doubly wrong? I can't work out how you get 300 million from this.

If you notice, they're only "exactly the same time" on a 12 hour clock, as we have a mixture of 7:43 am and pm. So there's 720 "times" to choose from. So they've done 720^3 instead of 720^2. Unless of course there's something amazing about the time 7:43 which I've missed, and they were all sat around after the eldest child was born in disbelief that they defied the odds to be born at that time...

Jon Corby wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:Edit: So I'm confused. Have they done 1440^3 and missed off a zero? Or something else doubly wrong? I can't work out how you get 300 million from this.

If you notice, they're only "exactly the same time" on a 12 hour clock, as we have a mixture of 7:43 am and pm. So there's 720 "times" to choose from. So they've done 720^3 instead of 720^2. Unless of course there's something amazing about the time 7:43 which I've missed, and they were all sat around after the eldest child was born in disbelief that they defied the odds to be born at that time...

Aha, well spotted. (I'd assumed it was just the same am/pm time as well, silly me.)

Although odd that they've rounded 373 million down to 300 rather than saying "nearly 400 million!" or even just "373 million!", I guess numbers that big are a bit much for people.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:Edit: So I'm confused. Have they done 1440^3 and missed off a zero? Or something else doubly wrong? I can't work out how you get 300 million from this.

If you notice, they're only "exactly the same time" on a 12 hour clock, as we have a mixture of 7:43 am and pm. So there's 720 "times" to choose from. So they've done 720^3 instead of 720^2. Unless of course there's something amazing about the time 7:43 which I've missed, and they were all sat around after the eldest child was born in disbelief that they defied the odds to be born at that time...

Aha, well spotted. (I'd assumed it was just the same am/pm time as well, silly me.)

Although odd that they've rounded 373 million down to 300 rather than saying "nearly 400 million!" or even just "373 million!", I guess numbers that big are a bit much for people.

Yeah. Although the real odds of what they're actually reporting is nowhere near that (only 1 in 518,400).

Jon Corby wrote:Yeah. Although the real odds of what they're actually reporting is nowhere near that (only 1 in 518,400).

Yep, they did a similar thing with the 'special birthdates' one (although that one is complicated slightly by all three dates at least being a little bit special in the first place, unlike this).

Jon Corby wrote: Yeah. Although the real odds of what they're actually reporting is nowhere near that (only 1 in 518,400).

And given that there's nothing notable about this couple to begin with, the odds are more like 1 in 1.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jon Corby wrote: Yeah. Although the real odds of what they're actually reporting is nowhere near that (only 1 in 518,400).

And given that there's nothing notable about this couple to begin with, the odds are more like 1 in 1.

So? They've still beaten odds of 1 in 1. Are you jealous or something?

You can all go to fucking hell. You're just doing this to upset me.

Why is it ^2 and not ^3, because the timing of the first child didn't matter, it just set the precedent for the two subsequent children to adhere to?

Matt Morrison wrote:You can all go to fucking hell. You're just doing this to upset me.

Why is it ^2 and not ^3, because the timing of the first child didn't matter, it just set the precedent for the two subsequent children to adhere to?

(Y)

Matt Morrison wrote:Why is it ^2 and not ^3, because the timing of the first child didn't matter, it just set the precedent for the two subsequent children to adhere to?

Yeah. The first child was always going to be born at some time. The fact that it was 7:43 is neither here nor there. The chance that their next child would be born at this time is 1 in 12*60. The chance that their next two will be born at this time is 1 in (12*60)^2.

Roll a dice instead, and we'll consider it similarly noteworthy if all three dice rolls are the same. Is this chance 1 in (6*6) or 1 in (6*6*6)? Same deal.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jon Corby wrote: Yeah. Although the real odds of what they're actually reporting is nowhere near that (only 1 in 518,400).

And given that there's nothing notable about this couple to begin with, the odds are more like 1 in 1.

So? They've still beaten odds of 1 in 1. Are you jealous or something?

This is no place to mock my fertility issues.

"Stunned father, Matt, 31, has a tattoo with the numbers 7 4 3 on his arm and added: "I looked up at the clock and it was 7.43. We couldn't believe the coincidence."

The follow up article says that after the birth they went outside and it was raining. ANYONE GUESS WHAT THEY HAD FOR TEA!!11!!!!1!1one!1!1!!!eleven!!!!!1!

Dinos Sfyris wrote:"Stunned father, Matt, 31, has a tattoo with the numbers 7 4 3 on his arm and added: "I looked up at the clock and it was 7.43. We couldn't believe the coincidence."

The follow up article says that after the birth they went outside and it was raining. ANYONE GUESS WHAT THEY HAD FOR TEA!!11!!!!1!1one!1!1!!!eleven!!!!!1!

Maybe he already had the tattoo to begin with!

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Dinos Sfyris wrote:"Stunned father, Matt, 31, has a tattoo with the numbers 7 4 3 on his arm and added: "I looked up at the clock and it was 7.43. We couldn't believe the coincidence."

The follow up article says that after the birth they went outside and it was raining. ANYONE GUESS WHAT THEY HAD FOR TEA!!11!!!!1!1one!1!1!!!eleven!!!!!1!

Maybe he already had the tattoo to begin with!

Apparently they only noticed the tattoo afterwards - none of them have any idea where it came from! AND WHEN THEY LOOKED AT THE CLOCK IT HAD STOPPED DEAD - AT 7:43!!!

It's probably longer odds to get all three children born in the same hospital