April 14th, 2017, 11:21 AM  #11 
Banned Camp Joined: Mar 2017 From: . Posts: 338 Thanks: 8 Math Focus: Number theory 
Good example.. the card problem. Lets say there are 52 cards. You are told to choose one at random. The probability of choosing a card is 1. The probability of choosing an ace is 1/52. What the solution to the question was to clarify is that it is not a paradox. Perhaps it was wrongly phrased by using the word random by which you have deduced it is impossible to pick any number randomly in that case. Either way we arrive to the same conclusion. The problem is not a paradox as the writer claimed it is. 
April 15th, 2017, 12:41 AM  #12  
Senior Member Joined: Jun 2015 From: England Posts: 820 Thanks: 243  Quote:
 
April 15th, 2017, 04:52 AM  #13 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,305 Thanks: 2443 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra 
It is perfectly possible to randomly pick a natural number. Two such probability distributions for this are given in the other thread. What is not possible is a uniform probability distribution over an infinite domain. Over an infinite domain, the probability of picking a number $n$ must tend to zero as $n \to \infty$. This is required for the cumulative probability function to converge to unity without which we don't have a probability distribution at all. Last edited by v8archie; April 15th, 2017 at 04:55 AM. 
April 15th, 2017, 05:38 AM  #14 
Banned Camp Joined: Mar 2017 From: . Posts: 338 Thanks: 8 Math Focus: Number theory  I don't really know whether your question is really relevant here but I'll still answer it. You can choose something randomly and it's probability would be 1 if we only have one choice. Read #11. There are two different probabilities we are considering. 
April 15th, 2017, 12:02 PM  #15  
Senior Member Joined: Jun 2015 From: England Posts: 820 Thanks: 243  Quote:
It is an assertion, one you have already made. I asked for an explanation since I assert the opposite. Yes I agree it is possible to construct a process wherein the outcome is randomly dependent on a list of possiblities with preassigned probabilites, one of which is 1. To me this would also indicate that the process was rigged. But I do not agree when there is only one choice as in the last sweet in my finite bag of sweets. In that case the process is not random, it is deterministic. Do you think a process can simultaneously be both random and deterministic? In response to your second point, I do not understand the point of saying you are told to chose an outcome and then saying therefore the probability of there being an outcome is 1. Yes this is true at the end of the process, but so what. What if you never reach the end of the process?  
April 15th, 2017, 01:05 PM  #16  
Senior Member Joined: Jun 2014 From: USA Posts: 363 Thanks: 26  Quote:
For example, consider: $0 = 0 + 0 + 0 + ... = \frac{1}{\infty} + \frac{1}{\infty} + \frac{1}{\infty} + ... = \frac{1}{\infty} ( \, 1 + 1 + 1 + ... ) \, = \frac{\infty}{\infty} = 1$ Also, given: 1) the axiom of choice, 2) a randomly selected infinite binary sequence (created via the theoretical flipping of a coin infinitely many times), and 3) a definition of "select an element of an infinite set uniformly at random" that simply means, in layman's terms, that one and only one element of an infinite set will be selected using a process where all elements of the set have an equal chance of being selected, then it is possible to select a natural number uniformly at random as well as a real number (and not just a real number on a closed interval, I mean from all of $\mathbb{R}$). I am happy to post such a proof sometime in the next two weeks. It involves partitioning [0, 1] into an uncountable number of countable subsets, using choice to select a single element from each subset, and then defining a bijection between $\mathbb{N}$ and each subset based on the element selected from it using choice. I struggled with this a while back with Maschke, but have a proof now that works with the above criteria.  
April 15th, 2017, 01:24 PM  #17 
Senior Member Joined: Sep 2015 From: USA Posts: 1,931 Thanks: 999 
[QUOTE=AplanisTophet;567341]$\frac{1}{\infty} = 0$ is not technically true. It is undefined. For example, consider: $\frac{\infty}{\infty} = 1$ no, you cannot just aribtarily assert this. 
April 15th, 2017, 01:40 PM  #18  
Senior Member Joined: Jun 2014 From: USA Posts: 363 Thanks: 26 
[QUOTE=romsek;567343] Quote:
You don't have to take my word for it though: https://www.mathsisfun.com/calculus/...infinity.html  
April 15th, 2017, 01:52 PM  #19  
Senior Member Joined: Sep 2015 From: USA Posts: 1,931 Thanks: 999  Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
 
April 15th, 2017, 02:15 PM  #20  
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,887 Thanks: 522  Quote:
However the Vitali set is always a fascinating topic of discussion and actually bears on the BanachTarski paradox, which has been a topic of conversation lately. So feel free to have another go at it and I'm sure I'll be unable to resist chiming in.  

Tags 
difficulties, paradoxes, probability 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Infinity just has too many paradoxes to be a real thing  uperkurk  Applied Math  11  September 30th, 2013 03:10 PM 
Euler's Paradoxes  unm  Number Theory  0  December 3rd, 2012 06:05 PM 
Greatest of all paradoxes  krausebj0  New Users  0  November 25th, 2011 03:50 PM 
Resolution of Russell's and Cantor's paradoxes  DaniilTeplitskiy  Applied Math  35  August 30th, 2011 11:58 PM 
Integration difficulties  JohnTan  Calculus  4  February 15th, 2010 03:03 PM 