### Re: A math Problem

Posted:

**Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:11 pm**I've got a meth problem too.

Oh wait I read the title wrong...

Carry on

Oh wait I read the title wrong...

Carry on

Page **7** of **9**

Posted: **Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:11 pm**

I've got a meth problem too.

Oh wait I read the title wrong...

Carry on

Oh wait I read the title wrong...

Carry on

Posted: **Mon May 15, 2017 7:22 pm**

leroy wrote:leroy wrote:

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.he_who_is_nobody wrote: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.

Future dandan/leroy, care to handle this one again?

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

You already know you are wrong, thus why are you still asking this question?

leroy wrote:leroy wrote:

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

Again, you already displayed your ignorance of infinity. Do you really want to go down that rabbit whole again?

leroy wrote: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.

Do you disagree that the number line is real or that it is infinite?

leroy wrote: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).

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?

Those points were demonstrated here by several different users giving you several different citations. Your memory problems are quite the problem. That means the ball is in your court to show why they are wrong.

However, I think I must just echo Rumraket:

Rumraket wrote:Why is this thread continuing? The central point was conceded back here. Done, case closed. Thread over.

Posted: **Mon May 15, 2017 11:41 pm**

leroy wrote:

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

he_who_is_nobody

You already know you are wrong, thus why are you still asking this question?

Yes the math is correct, my objection is not the math,

my objection is that it is impossible to have an infinite pool of options, when you are asked to pick a number you can only choose from the numbers that exists in your mind which is a finite number of options.

Do you disagree that the number line is real or that it is infinite?

I would consider myself a skeptic, (I don't know) but even if I grant that numbers exist and that there is an infinite number of them, it would steel be a fact that brains and computers have limited memory, none can handle an infinite amount of numbers. none can imagine of numbers therefore none can choose from an infinite pool of options.

Posted: **Tue May 16, 2017 1:08 pm**

leroy wrote:leroy wrote:

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

he_who_is_nobodyYou already know you are wrong, thus why are you still asking this question?

Yes the math is correct, my objection is not the math,

my objection is that it is impossible to have an infinite pool of options, when you are asked to pick a number you can only choose from the numbers that exists in your mind which is a finite number of options.

So the smaller the mind, the less choice you really have.

Posted: **Tue May 16, 2017 6:17 pm**

leroy wrote:leroy wrote:

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

he_who_is_nobodyYou already know you are wrong, thus why are you still asking this question?

Yes the math is correct, my objection is not the math,

my objection is that it is impossible to have an infinite pool of options, when you are asked to pick a number you can only choose from the numbers that exists in your mind which is a finite number of options.

So, what are the odds that you would pick 7312004874512 randomly? Care to do the math?

leroy wrote:Do you disagree that the number line is real or that it is infinite?

I would consider myself a skeptic, (I don't know) but even if I grant that numbers exist and that there is an infinite number of them, it would steel be a fact that brains and computers have limited memory, none can handle an infinite amount of numbers. none can imagine of numbers therefore none can choose from an infinite pool of options.

So, what were the odds that you would pick 7312004874512 randomly? How exactly do you suggest we calculate that? Oh, and you do not have to be a skeptic. As I said, and you saw fit to ignore, citations were provided for you about this subject.

Posted: **Tue May 16, 2017 7:15 pm**

he_who_is_nobody wrote:So, what are the odds that you would pick 7312004874512 randomly? Care to do the math?

No I cant do the math because I don't understand all the variables that influence my selection. but I don't need math to prove my point.

all I have to do is provide at least 1 example of a constraint that would limit the options to a finite number of possibilities, and I already did that ...should I repeat myself ?

Posted: **Wed May 17, 2017 5:36 pm**

leroy wrote:he_who_is_nobody wrote:So, what are the odds that you would pick 7312004874512 randomly? Care to do the math?

No I cant do the math because I don't understand all the variables that influence my selection. but I don't need math to prove my point.

all I have to do is provide at least 1 example of a constraint that would limit the options to a finite number of possibilities, and I already did that ...should I repeat myself ?

You cannot, because you do not understand all the variables? Where has this dandan/leroy been this whole time?

Beyond that, I am asking for the odds, you realize that odds are not used to predict a specific case, right? Thus, you may not know all the variables for a specific case, but you agree that we can calculate the odds, right? Would you also agree that one of those variables would be all the real numbers?

Posted: **Wed May 17, 2017 5:53 pm**

he_who_is_nobody wrote:No I cant do the math because I don't understand all the variables that influence my selection. but I don't need math to prove my point.

all I have to do is provide at least 1 example of a constraint that would limit the options to a finite number of possibilities, and I already did that ...should I repeat myself ?

You cannot, because you do not understand all the variables? Where has this dandan/leroy been this whole time?

Beyond that, I am asking for the odds, you realize that odds are not used to predict a specific case, right? Thus, you may not know all the variables for a specific case, but you agree that we can calculate the odds, right? Would you also agree that one of those variables would be all the real numbers?

Yes and an other variable would be time.

Given that I will only exist for a limited amount of time I could have only typed a number with a given amount of digits...............I could have not typed a number with trillions of digits because long before that I would have died

and an other variable would be the power (memory) of my computer

My computer can only support a limited amount of numbers, I could have not typed a number with trillions of digits, because my computer would have collapsed long before that.

there are variables that would make impossible to type a number with trillions of digits, (and many other variables that would limit the options even more, )

given that there is only a finite amount of real numbers with less than 1 trillion digits the odds of typing 7312004874512 1/ a very large but finite number.

I cant calculate the exact odds, but I can prove (and already did prove multiple times) that the odds would be 1/ a finite number

Posted: **Thu May 18, 2017 2:31 am**

There used to be a point to this thread, didn't there?

Posted: **Thu May 18, 2017 12:54 pm**

Grumpy Santa wrote:There used to be a point to this thread, didn't there?

Like most topics leroy gets involved in the point is nothing he can't cover with a toque

Posted: **Thu May 18, 2017 1:38 pm**

leroy wrote:Yes and an other variable would be time.

Given that I will only exist for a limited amount of time I could have only typed a number with a given amount of digits...............I could have not typed a number with trillions of digits because long before that I would have died

and an other variable would be the power (memory) of my computer

My computer can only support a limited amount of numbers, I could have not typed a number with trillions of digits, because my computer would have collapsed long before that.

there are variables that would make impossible to type a number with trillions of digits, (and many other variables that would limit the options even more, )

given that there is only a finite amount of real numbers with less than 1 trillion digits the odds of typing 7312004874512 1/ a very large but finite number.

I cant calculate the exact odds, but I can prove (and already did prove multiple times) that the odds would be 1/ a finite number

Thus, you are stating that in order to calculate the odds, you would not count all the real numbers as a variable? Taking into account your limitations still does not seem to remove the variable of the real numbers having to be factored into any calculations of the odds. What is allowing you to remove all the real numbers as a factor in your calculation? It seems to me any calculation you come up with still looks like X/(real numbers)(one's time)(one's memory)(y)(z).... Again, how are you removing the real numbers from it?

However, I must just point out that I love the new take on calculating odds from you. Acknowledged that there can be unknown variables that still needs to be factored in is a refreshing take from you. Happy to see you learned that.

Posted: **Thu May 18, 2017 3:27 pm**

he_who_is_nobody wrote:leroy wrote:Yes and an other variable would be time.

Given that I will only exist for a limited amount of time I could have only typed a number with a given amount of digits...............I could have not typed a number with trillions of digits because long before that I would have died

and an other variable would be the power (memory) of my computer

My computer can only support a limited amount of numbers, I could have not typed a number with trillions of digits, because my computer would have collapsed long before that.

there are variables that would make impossible to type a number with trillions of digits, (and many other variables that would limit the options even more, )

given that there is only a finite amount of real numbers with less than 1 trillion digits the odds of typing 7312004874512 1/ a very large but finite number.

I cant calculate the exact odds, but I can prove (and already did prove multiple times) that the odds would be 1/ a finite number

Thus, you are stating that in order to calculate the odds, you would not count all the real numbers as a variable? Taking into account your limitations still does not seem to remove the variable of the real numbers having to be factored into any calculations of the odds. What is allowing you to remove all the real numbers as a factor in your calculation? It seems to me any calculation you come up with still looks like X/(real numbers)(one's time)(one's memory)(y)(z).... Again, how are you removing the real numbers from it?

However, I must just point out that I love the new take on calculating odds from you. Acknowledged that there can be unknown variables that still needs to be factored in is a refreshing take from you. Happy to see you learned that.

which of these 3 points do you find controversial?

1 that I will only exist for a limited amount of time, and therefore it would be imposible for me to type a digit with trillions of digits?

2 that there is a finite amount of real numbers that have between 1 and 1 trillion digits?

3 that 1 divided by a finite number is NOT ZERO

Posted: **Thu May 18, 2017 4:13 pm**

that I will only exist for a limited amount of time, and therefore it would be imposible for me to type a digit with trillions of digits?

Leroy, are you confusing the fact that the number line is infinite with the fact that you personally will not be able to a digit with 1 trillion digits?

What has your ability to write digits got to do with the characteristics of the number line?

You sound almost like Ken Ham and his idiotic "Were you there?" and "Observational/Historical Science".

As an aside I find none of your three points particularly controversial

Posted: **Thu May 18, 2017 5:18 pm**

Steelmage99 wrote:that I will only exist for a limited amount of time, and therefore it would be imposible for me to type a digit with trillions of digits?

Leroy, are you confusing the fact that the number line is infinite with the fact that you personally will not be able to a digit with 1 trillion digits?

What has your ability to write digits got to do with the characteristics of the number line?

You sound almost like Ken Ham and his idiotic "Were you there?" and "Observational/Historical Science".

As an aside I find none of your three points particularly controversial

Because what he_who_is_nobody is saying is that I have the ability to type any real number including numbers with trillions of digits. or in other words he is saying that when I type a random number I haveinfinite options ................I am simply showing that it is not true.

he_who_is_nobody believes that the probability of me typing this random number 4287 is zero, (not nearly zero) but literally zero.......I know, it is a very stupid statement, but what can I do.

Posted: **Thu May 18, 2017 5:27 pm**

Leroy, others, you may find this interesting...

https://www.statlect.com/fundamentals-o ... ity-events

"Zero-probability events

The notion of a zero-probability event plays a special role in probability theory and statistics, because it underpins the important concepts of almost sure property and almost sure event. This lecture defines zero-probability events and discusses some counter-intuitive aspects of their apparently simple definition, in particular the fact that a zero-probability event is not an event that never happens: there are common probabilistic settings where zero-probability events do happen all the time! After discussing this matter, the concepts of almost sure property and almost sure event are introduced."

Oh, also Leroy, any number divided by infinity is defined as zero. Keep in mind, infinity isn't a number, it's a concept. *BY DEFINITION* any number divided by infinity is zero.

This is not the same as plugging a massive number in place of infinity and getting an infinitesimal result, that's division between two numbers. So, just for clarity, I'll say it again... infinity is a concept, not a number and, by definition, any number divided by infinity is zero.

https://www.statlect.com/fundamentals-o ... ity-events

"Zero-probability events

The notion of a zero-probability event plays a special role in probability theory and statistics, because it underpins the important concepts of almost sure property and almost sure event. This lecture defines zero-probability events and discusses some counter-intuitive aspects of their apparently simple definition, in particular the fact that a zero-probability event is not an event that never happens: there are common probabilistic settings where zero-probability events do happen all the time! After discussing this matter, the concepts of almost sure property and almost sure event are introduced."

Oh, also Leroy, any number divided by infinity is defined as zero. Keep in mind, infinity isn't a number, it's a concept. *BY DEFINITION* any number divided by infinity is zero.

This is not the same as plugging a massive number in place of infinity and getting an infinitesimal result, that's division between two numbers. So, just for clarity, I'll say it again... infinity is a concept, not a number and, by definition, any number divided by infinity is zero.

Posted: **Thu May 18, 2017 5:49 pm**

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Would you also agree that one of those variables would be all the real numbers?

Spot on and, in the general case, that is the only variable. There aren't any others.

Posted: **Thu May 18, 2017 5:53 pm**

leroy wrote:I could have not typed a number with trillions of digits because long before that I would have died

Setting aside that this derail is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand, which concerns the general case of selecting a number at random, this is still wrong, because it's trivial to write a number down with trillions of digits. That's what exponents are for.

All utterly without relevance to the discussion, though, because we're not talking about what Leroy can select, because that's probably limited to 2 digits or fewer.

Posted: **Thu May 18, 2017 6:08 pm**

Grumpy Santa wrote:Oh, also Leroy, any number divided by infinity is defined as zero. Keep in mind, infinity isn't a number, it's a concept. *BY DEFINITION* any number divided by infinity is zero.

.

I grant that any number divided by infinity is Zero................what I don't grant is that the probability of me typing this number 797412 is 1 divided by infinity .............because I did not have an infinite pool of options .........I already provided examples of absolute constraints that would limit my options to a finite pool of possibilities

Posted: **Thu May 18, 2017 6:11 pm**

hackenslash wrote:he_who_is_nobody wrote:Would you also agree that one of those variables would be all the real numbers?

Spot on and, in the general case, that is the only variable. There aren't any others.

yes, the fact that the real numbers are infinite, does not prove that I could have typed any number,.................................as mentioned before it would have been impossible for me to type a number with trillions of digits because I don't have enough time and my computer does not have enough memory to support such a large number

Posted: **Thu May 18, 2017 6:14 pm**

leroy wrote:

Because what he_who_is_nobody is saying is that I have the ability to type any real number including numbers with trillions of digits. or in other words he is saying that when I type a random number I haveinfinite options ................I am simply showing that it is not true.

he_who_is_nobody believes that the probability of me typing this random number 4287 is zero, (not nearly zero) but literally zero.......I know, it is a very stupid statement, but what can I do.

Well, that's because, believe it or not, he's correct technically.

If you recognize the random number 4287 as being one of an infinite set, then by definition he's correct.

If you've placed 4287 in a finite set, say positive integers from 1 to 5000, then you had a 1 in 5000 chance on guessing that one.

So, realistically, you're both right. 4287 is indeed part of an infinite set, and any number divided by infinity is zero by definition. You're claiming it as part of a smaller, finite set making it a number divided by an actual number, which in this case would not be zero.

Does this clear things up now? It seems he's talking about one thing and you're talking about another.