May 11th, 2017, 11:46 AM  #11 
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,626 Thanks: 413  As one of the Wiki pages on the subject mentions, Kolmogorov himself was unhappy about this situation. I've never said that you're not raising a valid philosophical point. You're just not raising a valid mathematical one. Personally I regard $\int_0^1 dx = 1$ as a great philosophical mystery. How can we add up infinitely many infinitesimally small things to get exactly $1$? And adding up the same number (by bijection) of infinitesimally small things can give us $2$ or $3$ or $\infty$ or any number that we like. How does that work? But any high school calculus student can knock down the symbology with no problem and without giving it a second thought. Most mathematicians don't give it a second thought. Because when they're doing math they're not doing philosophy. Perhaps your concerns are along philosophical lines and would be better addressed on a philosophy site. But of course the mystery of how dimensionless points give rise to dimension is a question that nobody knows the answer to. 

Tags 
cantor, distribution, set, ternary, uniform, vitali way 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Cantor's "Diagonal" Argument, Last Member  zylo  Topology  1  June 23rd, 2016 07:41 AM 
Statistics: What does it mean when x is "uniform on (0,1)"?  Artus  Advanced Statistics  1  September 12th, 2012 02:02 PM 
A "simple" application of dirac delta "shift theorem"...help  SedaKhold  Calculus  0  February 13th, 2012 12:45 PM 
Cantor's diagonal argument  "disproof"  Reckhard  Abstract Algebra  11  July 31st, 2010 01:05 PM 
sample exerimentneed help finding "statistic" and "result"  katie0127  Advanced Statistics  0  December 3rd, 2008 02:54 PM 