Seduced by a Number

The 0,0000000...1 number is still different from 0. The matter is that it is not a repeater (the 1 occurs only once), and it has a fixed number of digits (as there's no continuation after the 1 digit). If it gets substracted from 1, the result would be something like 0,99999...998(9) (the 8 appears after as many digits as does the 1 in 0,0000...1) which doesn't equal 0,(9). No matter how many zeroes are there, it's still different from 0.

If it were a repeater, such as 0,(0000000001), it would again be different from 0. Such numbers are repeaters with a numerator - the digit combination in the brackets, and a denominator - a number written with as many 9s as there are numbers in the numerator. For example, 0,(721) = 721/999. 0,(0000000001) would equal 1/9999999999, which is a positive number since both the numerator and denominator are positive.

the statement of "roughly 0" is not valid. So what is "roughly 0" + "roughly 2"? "rougly 0" divide by "roughly 6" = what? It's not comic math.

Seriously? I explained to you that I was not speaking using precise mathematical language originally and clarified it. What do you disagree with in the clarification?

It's a little easier to grasp in these terms when we deal with integers as opposed to the example where you're picking a random real number between 1 and zero (and also more analogous to the prime number question):

For any set of integers of size x, the probability of picking a particular integer out of that set = 1/x.  So for the integers between 1 and 10 inclusive, the odds are 1/10.  (Pretty simple so far...)

As x increases, the odds decrease asymptotically (approaching zero as x approaches infinity).

1/∞ doesn't have any meaning, however, so in practical terms it can only be expressed as the limit of the probability function 1/x.  To be clear though, what this says is that the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity is zero.  Trying to invoke infinity in the practical example, however, breaks down in the same way trying to evaluate 1/∞ does.  So I don't think it's correct to say that the probability is zero or that zero probability is not the same thing as "impossible" as both of these statements are based on trying to perform mathematical operations on infinity.

More correctly, the probability of selecting a random prime number out of the set of integers approaches zero as the size of the set of integers approaches infinity, just as the probability of selecting a single random number out of the set of integers approaches zero as the size of the set of integers approaches infinity.

Zero probability is the same as impossible.  Near zero probability is just immensely improbable.

Thank you. I think I said the same thing as you, but in a different way. I think our friend is disagreeing with my first phrasing which was not intended to be a mathematical proof but is essentially correct.

EricFleet wrote:

Seriously? I explained to you that I was not speaking using precise mathematical language originally and clarified it. What do you disagree with in the clarification?

Me: lol. At least there is some clarification. lol.

TheGrobe wrote:

It's a little easier to grasp in these terms when we deal with integers as opposed to the example where you're picking a random real number between 1 and zero (and also more analogous to the prime number question):

For any set of integers of size x, the probability of picking a particular integer out of that set = 1/x.  So for the integers between 1 and 10 inclusive, the odds are 1/10.  (Pretty simple so far...)

Me: we can argue endlessly about probability 0. But the answer will still be 0, no matter what our arguments are.

Note: x is taken as infinity. So the correct answer is equal to 0 as the limit equation states so.

7

No. Approaches zero. There is a big difference, and a calc teacher worth his salt will drill ths into his students' head (mine did).

EricFleet wrote:

No. Approaches zero. There is a big difference, and a calc teacher worth his salt will drill ths into his students' head (mine did).

lol. you are contradicting with your equation. 0 is not zero, and zero is not 0. But 0 is zero.

away from this terrestrial ball in outer space or approaching infinity our numbers are meaningless, our concepts inept, and our theories simplistic...time does not exist away from this ball spinning in space!

of course we need these things to feed our over grown egos

I would rather have a women.

Just a question: have you taken Calculus? If so, what university?

me too winer but some of these guys appear more tied up with theorising with numbers than fantasising with women

And you are more interested in reading about people theorising with numbers than fantasising with women :)

Women are warmer and easier to understand (sometimes).

1st part true... second part, not so much :)

feel their warmth and just ignore their mis-understandings

And never go to bed angry.