A math Problem

[leroy]

so he_who_is_nobody he_who_is_nobody

Do you finally agree that events with zero probability don’t happen?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I'm going to also make a point that if the universe had been an unbounded infinitely singly connect non-deterministic universe, then any definite state of the Universe would have zero probability. In that scenario not only would zero probably states occur all the time, all definitive events would have zero probability.
But as I have said, if this sort of thing isn't your hardcore field of interest, you would likely not have known enough to be able to make any inteligeable statement about this.

 

[leroy]

I'm going to also make a point that if the universe had been an unbounded infinitely singly connect non-deterministic universe, then any definite state of the Universe would have zero probability. In that scenario not only would zero probably states occur all the time, all definitive events would have zero probability.
But as I have said, if this sort of thing isn't your hardcore field of interest, you would likely not have known enough to be able to make any inteligeable statement about this.

Luckily I would have had a line of defense for that argument.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

so he_who_is_nobody he_who_is_nobody

Do you finally agree that events with zero probability don’t happen?

I agree that Master_Ghost_Knight made a great argument for why this is not an example of that (why you could not is still beyond me). Whether or not it is a thing that happens, I am not in the business of making declarations like that. However, whether or not that is the case is trivial as well.

 

[leroy]

so he_who_is_nobody he_who_is_nobody

Do you finally agree that events with zero probability don’t happen?

I agree that Master_Ghost_Knight made a great argument for why this is not an example of that (why you could not is still beyond me). Whether or not it is a thing that happens, I am not in the business of making declarations like that. However, whether or not that is the case is trivial as well.

Translation> Master_Ghost_Knight is an atheist and you are a theist, therefore I would listen to Master_Ghost_Knight and consider his points, and I will ignore you and reject by default any claim that you might make because theist are wrong by default.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Leroy. The fact that you were right is incidental, and only because we live in an Universe with this peculiar set of properties.
Stop pretending that you knew any better, you did not.
As I have mentioned, this type of analysis is not something that the vast majority of people, even experts in the fields of mathematics and physics would be expected to know.
Not necessarily because it involves specialized concepts that are far from easy to grant or realize the consequences, but it is because of that and the fact that it is not that useful piece of trivia that would be worth spending that much time and effort, it requires a strange overlap of knowledge that people simply don't bother with.
You just happened to have accidentally come to this one forum, where there was this one guy that just happened to have had a strange academic path and whose job and field of interest that happened to have lead him close enough to this topic such that he would look into this.
It's not obvious, I will give you a simple example.

Playing darts. The probability of throwing a dart at a target and have it land on an exact point on the target feels like it should be 0. After all a point has 0 area and the world feels continuous, and in a continuous world you would be able to fit infinitely many points between 2 other points with a distance apart.
The only reason why playing darts doesn't provide 0 probability events is because I have thrown the hypothesis that we "live in a continuous world" out the window.

Sure, he was wrong, but you weren't right either. So be gracious and take the win.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I agree that Master_Ghost_Knight made a great argument for why this is not an example of that (why you could not is still beyond me). Whether or not it is a thing that happens, I am not in the business of making declarations like that. However, whether or not that is the case is trivial as well.

Translation> Master_Ghost_Knight is an atheist and you are a theist, therefore I would listen to Master_Ghost_Knight and consider his points, and I will ignore you and reject by default any claim that you might make because theist are wrong by default.

:lol:

Right, it had nothing to do with Master_Ghost_Knight actually providing a logical argument and you could only provide nonsense. One has to wonder what color the sky is in your world.

:lol:

Sure, he was wrong, but you weren't right either. So be gracious and take the win.

You will have to forgive dandan/leroy. He is rarely ever correct, even if incidentally. Thus, let him struct. It is cute.

 

[leroy]

Right, it had nothing to do with Master_Ghost_Knight actually providing a logical argument and you could only provide nonsense. One has to wonder what color the sky is in your world.

.

he didn't say anything different from what I said, at most Master_Ghost_Knight added an extra layer of complexity in his argument.

Master_Ghost_Knight
This also means that some numbers must necessarily be harder to represent, requiring more matter (and energy) to do so, which also reduces the number of permutations that you would allow it to represent the same number.
Since energy is quite a limited resource to humans, there would be a bias for humans to be able to represent a very limited amount of small numbers, most of which represented only on the account of particular "representation shortcuts" that are able to provide numbers with a very peculiar meaning of interest (for example pi, irrational number, but ratio of diameter to perimeter of a circle, easy to represent because of shortcut).

how is that different from what I said about limit computer power, limited time etc.

Master_Ghost_Knight
I'm going to have to side with leroy on this one.
A human is on average far more likely to pick low numbers than to pick high one.

how is that different from what I said?


why don't you simply admit that you rejected my comments by default because I am a theist? why don't you admit that you didn't even made an effort to understand the arguments that I presented?

 

[leroy]

Playing darts. The probability of throwing a dart at a target and have it land on an exact point on the target feels like it should be 0..

which means that such an event cant happen.

zero probability means that it cant happen.

After all a point has 0 area and the world feels continuous, and in a continuous world you would be able to fit infinitely many points between 2 other points with a distance apart

.
a dart cant hit a "single exact point with zero area." the dart has an area and therefore it would hit infinite many points. this is true regardless if the universe is continuous or not.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Right, it had nothing to do with Master_Ghost_Knight actually providing a logical argument and you could only provide nonsense. One has to wonder what color the sky is in your world.

.

he didn't say anything different from what I said, at most Master_Ghost_Knight added an extra layer of complexity in his argument.

Says you.

Master_Ghost_Knight
This also means that some numbers must necessarily be harder to represent, requiring more matter (and energy) to do so, which also reduces the number of permutations that you would allow it to represent the same number.
Since energy is quite a limited resource to humans, there would be a bias for humans to be able to represent a very limited amount of small numbers, most of which represented only on the account of particular "representation shortcuts" that are able to provide numbers with a very peculiar meaning of interest (for example pi, irrational number, but ratio of diameter to perimeter of a circle, easy to represent because of shortcut).

how is that different from what I said about limit computer power, limited time etc

You mean besides him actually stringing all that into a logically coherent argument and not ignoring the fact that we can come up with short cuts for righting large numbers?

Master_Ghost_Knight
I'm going to have to side with leroy on this one.
A human is on average far more likely to pick low numbers than to pick high one.

how is that different from what I said?

That is not, and at that point all he is doing is asserting it as you did. However, he later came back and actually wrote a logically coherent argument for his position, while not ignoring basic objections that people had made.

why don't you simply admit that you rejected my comments by default because I am a theist? why don't you admit that you didn't even made an effort to understand the arguments that I presented?

Once again, dandan/leroy demonstrates that he needs to get a refund from his mind reading classes. Beyond that, it is not my job to try and understand anything you say, it is your job to create a logically coherent argument and present it in a way that people can understand. Stop expecting people to just know what you mean when you post and take the time to actually make sense, because if you think you said the same thing as Master_Ghost_Knight, neither of us agree.

Master_Ghost_Knight[/url]"]Sure, he was wrong, but you weren't right either. So be gracious and take the win.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Playing darts. The probability of throwing a dart at a target and have it land on an exact point on the target feels like it should be 0..

which means that such an event cant happen.

I guess that is why nobody plays darts.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

a dart cant hit a "single exact point with zero area." the dart has an area and therefore it would hit infinite many points.

Just define the center point as the "hit point". Even if the tip doesn't have 0 Area, the center point does.

this is true regardless if the universe is continuous or not.

Absolutely not! On a discrete Universe you can't have infinite points on a finite area.


Leroy, it is nothing personal, but there is so much wrong with this single post that it is unbelievable. Please stop trying to talk about issues you know nothing about, it just makes you look bad.

There is absolutely nothing wrong about being wrong (pardon the pun), and there is nothing wrong about not having enough competence to do certain things. It's fine, nobody will think less of you, just don't be ungracious about it.

 

[leroy]

You mean besides him actually stringing all that into a logically coherent argument and not ignoring the fact that we can come up with short cuts for righting large numbers?

In fact I did address the issue related to short cuts

hackenslash wrote:Number 2 is funny. It's almost like somebody who claims an expertise in mathematics sufficient to undermine a core principle of how probabilities work has never heard of exponents...

leroy
Even with exponentials (or other short cuts) given my limited time, limited computer power etc. there is still a finite amount of numbers that I could have typed there, are still numbers that have so many digits that it would have been impossible to type.

Beyond that, it is not my job to try and understand anything you say

Well that depends, what is your goal when you talk to theists in forums?

1 Win the argument, win the debate?
2 learn from people with a different world view

If your answer is “2” then yes you should make an honest effort to understand what the other person is saying.
This is why I always ask for direct answers, I honestly what to understand the position of those who disagree with me.

Beyond that, my arguments where
1 Humans can’t make completely random selections (and I provided multiple sources)
2 Some numbers are very large and are impossible to represent (which is what Master_Ghost_Knight said)
Implying that the scenario presented by Hack is an impossible scenario and therefore can´t happen.

No effort was needed, anyone with the willingness to understand would have understood.

 

[leroy]

I guess that is why nobody plays darts.

My argument was that it is impossible to throw a dart and hit a specific “center point” and area that a dart hits would have infinite points, and therefore no definite central point.

Absolutely not! On a discrete Universe you can't have infinite points on a finite area.

Granted, I never denied that.

But even if there where infinite points with zero area, a dart with an area would hit infinite many points and therefore it would not hit a central point.

Therefore the probabilities of hitting a single, specific, central point are ZERO, which means that the event cant happen.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

My argument was that it is impossible to throw a dart and hit a specific “center point” and area that a dart hits would have infinite points, and therefore no definite central point.

Well you are wrong. There is nothing that stops me from defining a "center point" of a dart even if a dart tip has an area, the tip may hit an area, however the "center point" of the tip will only match with 1 point on the board, and this is true simply because I can just define it.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

You mean besides him actually stringing all that into a logically coherent argument and not ignoring the fact that we can come up with short cuts for righting large numbers?

In fact I did address the issue related to short cuts

hackenslash wrote:Number 2 is funny. It's almost like somebody who claims an expertise in mathematics sufficient to undermine a core principle of how probabilities work has never heard of exponents...

leroy
Even with exponentials (or other short cuts) given my limited time, limited computer power etc. there is still a finite amount of numbers that I could have typed there, are still numbers that have so many digits that it would have been impossible to type.

:facepalm:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]You mean besides him actually stringing all that into a logically coherent argument and not ignoring the fact that we can come up with short cuts for righting large numbers?

Beyond that, it is not my job to try and understand anything you say

Well that depends, what is your goal when you talk to theists in forums?

1 Win the argument, win the debate?

Nope.

2 learn from people with a different world view

Better, but still not correct.

If your answer is “2” then yes you should make an honest effort to understand what the other person is saying.

Again, it is not my job to put your statements into a logically coherent argument. That is your job.

This is why I always ask for direct answers, I honestly what to understand the position of those who disagree with me.

I always give you direct answers (at least as direct as they can be). However, if you actually practiced what you are preaching here, you would answer direct questions instead of ignoring them as you normally do.

Beyond that, my arguments where
1 Humans can’t make completely random selections (and I provided multiple sources)
2 Some numbers are very large and are impossible to represent (which is what Master_Ghost_Knight said)
Implying that the scenario presented by Hack is an impossible scenario and therefore can´t happen.

No effort was needed, anyone with the willingness to understand would have understood.

Again, you failed to make that argument until Master_Ghost_Knight came here.

Master_Ghost_Knight[/url]"]Sure, he was wrong, but you weren't right either. So be gracious and take the win.

Get over it and perhaps actually put some effort into your posts next time. I have no doubt you think you made the same argument as Master_Ghost_Knight, but no one here sees it but you. Again, if you actually put some effort into your posts, than you might be getting the respect you think you deserve here.

 

[leroy]

Again, it is not my job to put your statements into a logically coherent argument. That is your job.

Care to spot my “logical incoherence’s”?

Leroy Wrote
My points
1 As I argued before, in the real world humans don’t make completely random selections, as the study that I quoted proves, some numbers are more likely to be selected than others (https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/shawnh ... andomness/................

2 Some numbers are very long (have too many digits) that are impossible to type (given that in the real world we have limited time, limited computer power etc.)

*this is to say that in the real world we dont have infinite options and selection of numbers is not completly random

3 And this article https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/9966/1/ ... r_9966.pdf shows that even in the abstract world of math events with zero probability are still impossible.

 

[leroy]

My argument was that it is impossible to throw a dart and hit a specific “center point” and area that a dart hits would have infinite points, and therefore no definite central point.

Well you are wrong. There is nothing that stops me from defining a "center point" of a dart even if a dart tip has an area, the tip may hit an area, however the "center point" of the tip will only match with 1 point on the board, and this is true simply because I can just define it.

Even if we assume that points exist; there wouldn’t be “a” center point; the dart would hit infinite many points and no point would be in the center.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Even if we assume that points exist; there wouldn’t be “a” center point; the dart would hit infinite many points and no point would be in the center.

Stating a mistake twice doesn't make it right.
I have explained this to you. It exists solely by the mere fact that I can uniquely define it.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Again, it is not my job to put your statements into a logically coherent argument. That is your job.

Care to spot my “logical incoherence’s”?

Leroy Wrote
My points
1 As I argued before, in the real world humans don’t make completely random selections, as the study that I quoted proves, some numbers are more likely to be selected than others (https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/shawnh ... andomness/................

2 Some numbers are very long (have too many digits) that are impossible to type (given that in the real world we have limited time, limited computer power etc.)

*this is to say that in the real world we dont have infinite options and selection of numbers is not completly random

3 And this article https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/9966/1/ ... r_9966.pdf shows that even in the abstract world of math events with zero probability are still impossible.

Dandan/leroy, it is over and you failed. It is not just me that said this:

Master_Ghost_Knight[/url]"]Sure, he was wrong, but you weren't right either. So be gracious and take the win.

Why keep whining that you were right when no one else sees it? I will say it again, this is exactly why you should have taken the time and put effort into your posts. I have no doubt you believe you said the same thing as Master_Ghost_Knight did, but no one else is seeing it, and all that could have been avoided if you just put effort into your posts instead of mindlessly responding. You have no one else to blame in this situation, but your lazy self. Get over it.