A math Problem

[he_who_is_nobody]

2 mistakes.

1 the fact that the series of real numbers is infinite, does not mean that I have the ability to choose from an infinite set of numbers, I can only choose from the numbers that I can imagine. I can only choose from the numbers that exist in my mind (a finite number)

2 I am more likely to imagine some numbers than others, I am more likely to choose 7 than to choose 7312004874512...

And yet you just chose both...

Actually, even though he said he was more likely to choose seven, he did not choose seven (that was hackenslash's example). Thus, he actually did only pick 7312004874512 randomly; which also proves hackenslash's point regardless of how much dandan/leroy whines about it.

 

[leroy]

Actually, even though he said he was more likely to choose seven, he did not choose seven (that was hackenslash's example). Thus, he actually did only pick 7312004874512 randomly; which also proves hackenslash's point regardless of how much dandan/leroy whines about it.

I never said that I will always pick 7 nor that I would never ever pick 7312004874512


all I am saying is that some numbers are more likely to be imagined than others, for example 1 digit numbers are more likely to be imagined than a 13 digit number.


if you ask 1,000 individuals to choose any number, you will have more individuals that pick a number with 1 digit, like 7 than a number with 13 digits like 7312004874512,

obviously you agree with this, but you pretend not to agree because you are just a 12yo troll. your friend hackenslash was simply wrong, the act of imagining a number is not a random event, some numbers are more likely to be imagined than others, you should correct him instead of pretending that you agree with him and disagree with me.




hackenslash wont lisen to me, his only hope to be corrected and no longer committing the same mistake is if you (or someone else worthy of his trust) corrects him

 

[thenexttodie]

Silly me for crediting you with a reasonably-functioning imagination.

:lol:

 

[Deleted member 619]

Given that PI has an infinite number of integers after the decimal point.

No it doesn't. You've simply latched onto the word 'integer' because somebody else used it, and now it's your word of the week. If you don't know what a word means, you should look it up before using it, because you'll always get caught.

 

[leroy]

Given that PI has an infinite number of integers after the decimal point.

No it doesn't. You've simply latched onto the word 'integer' because somebody else used it, and now it's your word of the week. If you don't know what a word means, you should look it up before using it, because you'll always get caught.

However the difference between you and I is that I have no problem in admitting that I made a mistake.

hackenslash wrote:
events with a zero probability happen all the time

how long will it take you to admit that this statement is wrong,(not to mention incoherent and absurd) or at least how long will it take you to admit that your trivial proof was wrong?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Actually, even though he said he was more likely to choose seven, he did not choose seven (that was hackenslash's example). Thus, he actually did only pick 7312004874512 randomly; which also proves hackenslash's point regardless of how much dandan/leroy whines about it.

I never said that I will always pick 7 nor that I would never ever pick 7312004874512


all I am saying is that some numbers are more likely to be imagined than others, for example 1 digit numbers are more likely to be imagined than a 13 digit number.

Than what you are saying is irrelevant to hackenslash's point. Please work on your reading comprehension.

if you ask 1,000 individuals to choose any number, you will have more individuals that pick a number with 1 digit, like 7 than a number with 13 digits like 7312004874512,

Citation needed.

obviously you agree with this, but you pretend not to agree because you are just a 12yo troll. your friend hackenslash was simply wrong, the act of imagining a number is not a random event, some numbers are more likely to be imagined than others, you should correct him instead of pretending that you agree with him and disagree with me.

I love how you still think you are a mind reader while at the same time displaying the worst reading comprehension I have ever seen. Beyond that, how could hackenslash be wrong when you picking 7312004874512 randomly proves him correct? Care to calculate those odds and prove him right?

hackenslash wont lisen to me, his only hope to be corrected and no longer committing the same mistake is if you (or someone else worthy of his trust) corrects him

Why would someone correct him when he is not wrong (and you demonstrated it yourself)? How about instead of mindlessly disagreeing with hackenslash, you actually read what he is saying and learn something for once?

 

[leroy]

Than what you are saying is irrelevant to hackenslash's point. Please work on your reading comprehension.

No it is not irrelevant, stop defending hackenslash, he said that me thinking in a number is a random event with an infinite pool of options, since this is clearly wrong then please stop defending him

if you ask 1,000 individuals to choose any number, you will have more individuals that pick a number with 1 digit, like 7 than a number with 13 digits like 7312004874512,

Citation needed.

:lol: :lol: :lol: just a personal guess. and you don't think otherwise, you are just pretending to do so because for some reason you feel that you should always help your atheist friends even when they are wrong.

I love how you still think you are a mind reader while at the same time displaying the worst reading comprehension I have ever seen. Beyond that, how could hackenslash be wrong when you picking 7312004874512 randomly proves him correct? Care to calculate those odds and prove him right?

the burden proof is on hackenslash, he is the one who believes that each number has the same probability to be imagined, even if 7312004874512 where more probable than 7 hackenslash would still be wrong.

ohhh, I am sorry I forgot that hackenslash is an atheist and that atheist don't have to prove their assertions.

Why would someone correct him when he is not wrong (and you demonstrated it yourself)? How about instead of mindlessly disagreeing with hackenslash, you actually read what he is saying and learn something for once?

ok so given that you are affirming that hackenslash is correct you are affirming that events with zero possibility can happen ...........see what happened? your sick obsession of defending your atheist friends at all cost is forcing you to grant an incoherent statement,

hackenslash would argue that the probability of me thinking in the number 7 is zero why don't you stop your hypocrisy and explain hackenslash why is he wrong.

events with zero possibility can happen

If I would have made this statement you would have corrected me, and probably even insulted and ridiculed me, so why don't you do the same with hackenslash?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Than what you are saying is irrelevant to hackenslash's point. Please work on your reading comprehension.

No it is not irrelevant, stop defending hackenslash, he said that me thinking in a number is a random event with an infinite pool of options, since this is clearly wrong then please stop defending him

Did you not have a infinite pool of options? What limited you? Again, do the calculation and tell us what the odds were for you to come up with 7312004874512 at random. Once you do that, you will see that hackenslash is correct.

if you ask 1,000 individuals to choose any number, you will have more individuals that pick a number with 1 digit, like 7 than a number with 13 digits like 7312004874512,

Citation needed.

:lol: :lol: :lol: just a personal guess. and you don't think otherwise, you are just pretending to do so because for some reason you feel that you should always help your atheist friends even when they are wrong.

First you claimed something as fact, now it is just a personal opinion. One that for whatever reason (those mind reading classes?) you think I share. I do not. I do not know what would be more likely.

I love how you still think you are a mind reader while at the same time displaying the worst reading comprehension I have ever seen. Beyond that, how could hackenslash be wrong when you picking 7312004874512 randomly proves him correct? Care to calculate those odds and prove him right?

the burden proof is on hackenslash, he is the one who believes that each number has the same probability to be imagined, even if 7312004874512 where more probable than 7 hackenslash would still be wrong.

Incorrect. That is not what hackenslash said. Stop creating straw men to burn and work on your reading comprehension.

ohhh, I am sorry I forgot that hackenslash is an atheist and that atheist don't have to prove their assertions.

Yet he already did.

hackenslash[/url]"]Pick any number on the real number line. Let's say, for example, that you choose the number 7. The probability of choosing that number at random is zero. How? Because the reals are infinite, and any number divided by infinity is zero, hance the probability of choosing 7, or indeed any other number, is exactly zero, yet the probability of choosing some number is exactly one.

[emphasis added]

Again, work on your reading comprehension, because this is just getting sad.

Why would someone correct him when he is not wrong (and you demonstrated it yourself)? How about instead of mindlessly disagreeing with hackenslash, you actually read what he is saying and learn something for once?

ok so given that you are affirming that hackenslash is correct you are affirming that events with zero possibility can happen ...........see what happened? your sick obsession of defending your atheist friends at all cost is forcing you to grant an incoherent statement,

How can it be incoherent when you randomly picking 7312004874512 proves it? Again, I await for you to do the math and prove him right. Anything short of that is just grandstanding.

hackenslash would argue that the probability of me thinking in the number 7 is zero why don't you stop your hypocrisy and explain hackenslash why is he wrong.

As hackenslash said:

hackenslash[/url]"]Pick any number on the real number line. Let's say, for example, that you choose the number 7. The probability of choosing that number at random is zero. How? Because the reals are infinite, and any number divided by infinity is zero, hance the probability of choosing 7, or indeed any other number, is exactly zero, yet the probability of choosing some number is exactly one.

[emphasis added]

Work on your reading comprehension, this is getting sad.

events with zero possibility can happen

If I would have made this statement you would have corrected me, and probably even insulted and ridiculed me, so why don't you do the same with hackenslash?

You are probably right that I would have corrected you on that, and then hackenslash would have came and pointed out:

hackenslash[/url]"]Pick any number on the real number line. Let's say, for example, that you choose the number 7. The probability of choosing that number at random is zero. How? Because the reals are infinite, and any number divided by infinity is zero, hance the probability of choosing 7, or indeed any other number, is exactly zero, yet the probability of choosing some number is exactly one.

[emphasis added]

And I would have accept that I was mistaken to believe you were wrong. Again, do the math and work on your reading comprehension, because this is just getting sad.

 

[leroy]

Did you not have a infinite pool of options? What limited you? Again, do the calculation and tell us what the odds were for you to come up with 7312004874512 at random. Once you do that, you will see that hackenslash is correct.

well for one thing 7312004874512 is a result of me typing random numbers in my keybord, given that I have limited time and my pomputer limited power, I could have not typed a number with trillions of digits. ...........there are some numbers that I could have not typed.

I can think on many other limitations that would prevent an infinite pool of options, but this one example is sufficient to prove my point.

First you claimed something as fact, now it is just a personal opinion. One that for whatever reason (those mind reading classes?) you think I share. I do not. I do not know what would be more likely.

hackenslash and no you are the ones who made the statement, you are the ones who are claiming that each number has the same probability to be imagined. you are the ones who are suppose to provide the proof.

Again, work on your reading comprehension

we have been there before, given that I have bad reading comprehension, why cant you provide simple and direct answers?

do you affirm that piking 7 and piking 7312004874512 have the same probability, when asking someone to pick any number?

do you affirm that the probability is zero in both cases?

thes are yes or no questions, please just answer yes or no, I might misunderstand any other answer so please limit your answers to a simple yes or no

and given that you are so good in reading comprehension, based on what hackenslash said, how do you think he would answer to those questions?

How can it be incoherent when you randomly picking 7312004874512 proves it?

me picking 7312004874512 proves that the probabilities of picking 7312004874512 are not zero.

You are probably right that I would have corrected you on that, and then hackenslash would have came and pointed out:

hackenslash[/url]"]Pick any number on the real number line. Let's say, for example, that you choose the number 7. The probability of choosing that number at random is zero. How? Because the reals are infinite, and any number divided by infinity is zero, hance the probability of choosing 7, or indeed any other number, is exactly zero, yet the probability of choosing some number is exactly one.

[emphasis added][

And I would have accept that I was mistaken to believe you were wrong. Again, do the math and work on your reading comprehension, because this is just getting sad.

But if I would have made the statement, instead of hackenslash, you would have explained to me that just because something can be represented mathematically, that doesn't mean its possible or even coherent,

for example
if you travel at -10 miles / hour (note that 10 is a negative number) for 200 miles you would travel for -20 hours which means that you would travel -20 hours to the past.

you can represent this mathematically Time = distance/speed

Time = 200/-10

Time = -20


but that doesn't mean that it is possible to travel back in time.


you would have explained to me that both the idea of an infinite pool of options and the idea of a negative speed are logically incoherent (or at least impossible) and the fact that you can represent them mathematically does not change that fact.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Leroy, think of it in terms of betting on horses in a race.

If there are six horses, then there is a 1-in-6 chance of you picking a horse on which to bet. Agreed?

Just because there's an infinite number of horses in the race doesn't change the fact that there's a 1-in-infinity chance of you betting on a horse.

And 1 divided by infinity is zero.

Thus, even though there's zero probability of you choosing a horse on which to bet, that's exactly what happens - you choose a horse.

Hence, your new signature is correct.

Earlier, you contradicted yourself - and this fact - when you stated that even if you had an infinite number of attempts you wouldn't succeed. Actually, if you had an infinite number of tries, you're bound to succeed.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

Greetings,

Leroy, think of it in terms of betting on horses in a race.

If there are six horses, then there is a 1-in-6 chance of you picking a horse on which to bet. Agreed?

Just because there's an infinite number of horses in the race doesn't change the fact that there's a 1-in-infinity chance of you betting on a horse.

And 1 divided by infinity is zero.

Thus, even though there's zero probability of you choosing a horse on which to bet, that's exactly what happens - you choose a horse.

Hence, your new signature is correct.

Earlier, you contradicted yourself - and this fact - when you stated that even if you had an infinite number of attempts you wouldn't succeed. Actually, if you had an infinite number of tries, you're bound to succeed.

Kindest regards,

James

granted the math is correct And 1 divided by infinity is zero, however just because you can show something mathematically doesn't prove that it is possible or even logically coherent in the real world.


you can represent mathematically a negative time, a negative distance or 100.65 space dimensions but none of that proves these concepts are even possible. .......the idea of an infinite number of horses is logically incoherent or at least impossible.

Hence, your new signature is correct

ok so

events with zero possibility happen all the time

can you provide 1 example, one real life example of a race with an infinite number of horses, or some other example with an infinite number of options? or would you agree that examples with infinite options only exist in the hypothetical world?


note, when a human or a computer select a number randomly, they don't select the number within an infinite pool of options, even a supercomputer has limited memory and can only hold an finite amount of numbers to chose from. so even if I grant that the series of real numbers is infinite it is still impossible to chose from an infinite pool of options.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

The fact that any event of which you can think - such as the chance that an atom in your right hand comes from a star which went supernova sometime in the past - has a 1-in-infinity probability of occurring is enough of an example to show that events with zero probability can occur.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

Greetings,

The fact that any event of which you can think - such as the chance that an atom in your right hand comes from a star which went supernova sometime in the past - has a 1-in-infinity probability of occurring is enough of an example to show that events with zero probability can occur.

Kindest regards,

James

the atom could have been in my right hand or in some other place, however there is a finite amount of places where an atom could have been. therefore in your example you are not dividing 1 / Infinity

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

The fact that any event of which you can think - such as the chance that an atom in your right hand comes from a star which went supernova sometime in the past - has a 1-in-infinity probability of occurring is enough of an example to show that events with zero probability can occur.

Kindest regards,

James

the atom could have been in my right hand or in some other place, however there is a finite amount of places where an atom could have been. therefore in your example you are not dividing 1 / Infinity

It's not the number of places it can be that matters - vast as that is - it's the cumulative probability that makes it a 1-in-infinity event.

What are the odds that a given atom from a given star, which subsequently went supernova, ended up in the disc, which formed our solar system, which eventually ended up in a specific point in your right hand (versus anywhere else).

Bear in mind that the original star from which it came was also the result of a supernova, etc, which is all part of the cumulative probability.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

It's not the number of places it can be that matters - vast as that is - it's the cumulative probability that makes it a 1-in-infinity event.

What are the odds that a given atom from a given star, which subsequently went supernova, ended up in the disc, which formed our solar system, which eventually ended up in a specific point in your right hand (versus anywhere else).

Bear in mind that the original star from which it came was also the result of a supernova, etc, which is all part of the cumulative probability.

Kindest regards,

James

given that you are suppose to be a determinist, you are suppose to believe that the probability of that even is 100%.............a none determinist would say that the probabilities are very small but not infinitely small.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

It's not the number of places it can be that matters - vast as that is - it's the cumulative probability that makes it a 1-in-infinity event.

What are the odds that a given atom from a given star, which subsequently went supernova, ended up in the disc, which formed our solar system, which eventually ended up in a specific point in your right hand (versus anywhere else).

Bear in mind that the original star from which it came was also the result of a supernova, etc, which is all part of the cumulative probability.

Kindest regards,

James

given that you are suppose to be a determinist, you are suppose to believe that the probability of that even is 100%.............a none determinist would say that the probabilities are very small but not infinitely small.

Determinism does not mean pre-determined.

Given the sheer number of chemical reactions that have occurred since the Big Bang until a specific atom ends up in a specific position in your right hand, the probability of it happening is zero.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Did you not have a infinite pool of options? What limited you? Again, do the calculation and tell us what the odds were for you to come up with 7312004874512 at random. Once you do that, you will see that hackenslash is correct.

well for one thing 7312004874512 is a result of me typing random numbers in my keybord, given that I have limited time and my pomputer limited power, I could have not typed a number with trillions of digits. ...........there are some numbers that I could have not typed.

Thus, you were limited in that moment. What would limit one in all cases?

I can think on many other limitations that would prevent an infinite pool of options, but this one example is sufficient to prove my point.

I would bet that all those limitations you came up with would limit someone in that moment and not one of them would be able to count for a real limitation on the real numbers.

First you claimed something as fact, now it is just a personal opinion. One that for whatever reason (those mind reading classes?) you think I share. I do not. I do not know what would be more likely.

hackenslash and no you are the ones who made the statement, you are the ones who are claiming that each number has the same probability to be imagined. you are the ones who are suppose to provide the proof.

You mean like this?

hackenslash[/url]"]Pick any number on the real number line. Let's say, for example, that you choose the number 7. The probability of choosing that number at random is zero. How? Because the reals are infinite, and any number divided by infinity is zero, hance the probability of choosing 7, or indeed any other number, is exactly zero, yet the probability of choosing some number is exactly one.

[emphasis added]

Oh, and look you later agreed that he was correct:

leroy[/url]"]granted the math is correct And 1 divided by infinity is zero...

I guess you have been working on that reading comprehension. I am proud of you.

Again, work on your reading comprehension

we have been there before, given that I have bad reading comprehension, why cant you provide simple and direct answers?

Hackenslash has, and right above you agreed we did. See how reading comprehension can help move a conversation forward?

do you affirm that piking 7 and piking 7312004874512 have the same probability, when asking someone to pick any number?

Yes, "Because the reals are infinite, and any number divided by infinity is zero, hance the probability of choosing 7, or indeed any other number, is exactly zero, yet the probability of choosing some number is exactly one."

do you affirm that the probability is zero in both cases?

Yes, "Because the reals are infinite, and any number divided by infinity is zero, hance the probability of choosing 7, or indeed any other number, is exactly zero, yet the probability of choosing some number is exactly one."

thes are yes or no questions, please just answer yes or no, I might misunderstand any other answer so please limit your answers to a simple yes or no

Yet, you already agreed that hackenslash was correct before I answered yes to those.

and given that you are so good in reading comprehension, based on what hackenslash said, how do you think he would answer to those questions?

Yes as well, "Because the reals are infinite, and any number divided by infinity is zero, hance the probability of choosing 7, or indeed any other number, is exactly zero, yet the probability of choosing some number is exactly one."

How can it be incoherent when you randomly picking 7312004874512 proves it?

me picking 7312004874512 proves that the probabilities of picking 7312004874512 are not zero.

Future dandan/leroy; care to correct past dandan/leroy?

leroy[/url]"]granted the math is correct And 1 divided by infinity is zero...

Thank you future dandan/leroy. Now if only past dandan/leroy had the reading comprehension skills you have, so much time would not be wasted.

You are probably right that I would have corrected you on that, and then hackenslash would have came and pointed out:

[...]

And I would have accept that I was mistaken to believe you were wrong. Again, do the math and work on your reading comprehension, because this is just getting sad.

But if I would have made the statement, instead of hackenslash, you would have explained to me that just because something can be represented mathematically, that doesn't mean its possible or even coherent,

More mind reading from dandan/leroy. You really need to get that refund from those classes.

for example
if you travel at -10 miles / hour (note that 10 is a negative number) for 200 miles you would travel for -20 hours which means that you would travel -20 hours to the past.

you can represent this mathematically Time = distance/speed

Time = 200/-10

Time = -20


but that doesn't mean that it is possible to travel back in time.


you would have explained to me that both the idea of an infinite pool of options and the idea of a negative speed are logically incoherent (or at least impossible) and the fact that you can represent them mathematically does not change that fact.

When was it ever demonstrated that the real numbers were not infinite? If you can demonstrate that, you would have a point. I remember you failing to even understand what an infinite is, but you never came close to demonstrating that it is incoherent or impossible (logical or otherwise).

By the way, I love the new quote. Acknowledging that hackenslash is correct and accepting the correction is very honorable and something I did not expect from you.

 

[leroy]

well for one thing 7312004874512 is a result of me typing random numbers in my keybord, given that I have limited time and my pomputer limited power, I could have not typed a number with trillions of digits. ...........there are some numbers that I could have not typed.

Thus, you were limited in that moment. What would limit one in all cases?

In all cases I would have limitations, I will always have limited time, and my computer (or any computer) will always have limited power and limited memory.

so please accept your burden and provide an example that happens all the time of someone or something that choose from an infinite pool of option.

leroy wrote:
granted the math is correct And 1 divided by infinity is zero...

I guess you have been working on that reading comprehension. I am proud of you

The fact that you can represent infinite options mathematically does not prove that it is possible or even coherent to have infinite options in the actual world, is there anything in this statement that you disagree with?

remember hackenslash is talking about events that happen all the time. we all agree that the formula is correct, the only point of disagreement is that I would argue that nothing in the real world represents that formula.......nothing in the real world has an infinite pool of options. And so for no one has ever provided an example from the real world that includes infinite options.

When was it ever demonstrated that the real numbers were not infinite? If you can demonstrate that, you would have a point. I remember you failing to even understand what an infinite is, but you never came close to demonstrating that it is incoherent or impossible (logical or otherwise).

[/quote]

why is it that atheist always what to scape their burden proof?

you are the one who is affirming that numbers are infinite, (consider that you are a nominalist)

you are the one wo affirms that it is possible to have infinite options

you are the one who affirms that it is possible to have an infinite number of something

of course with you I mean hackenslash, I am simply assuming that you share the same view on those 3 points, feel free to correct me and explain your actual views.


why should I grant any of those points if you haven't prove them?

 

[leroy]

Given the sheer number of chemical reactions that have occurred since the Big Bang until a specific atom ends up in a specific position in your right hand, the probability of it happening is zero.

Kindest regards,

James

well prove it, show me your math

 

[Steelmage99]

You make a lot of demands, Leroy.

How about you get to the point and explain what your......well, point...... is with your original post.