Re: Zero digits in powers




Le 19/06/2005 03:50, dans
1119145815.254884.263170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
« vkarlamov@xxxxxxxxx » <vkarlamov@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :


> Look, Jean-Claude. I don't want to turn yourself away from the study of
> probability.

Impossible. For simple reasons... And I won't turn away from anything
because of a stormy argument.

> I just find it that given your unfamiliarity with the
> basics of probability theory,

You eggagerate greatly. If think I was wrong on this point about sigma
algebras. There are many as I said, but as you said it seems always possible
to decompose in blocks. I had forgotten this, and was looking for a counter
example, like 2^p*N (N being the natural integers). Sigh. They all fail, and
I missed the point here. Let's say I was tired :-) (4:34 local, now...)

Yet, you are not showing great probability understanding in all the
preceding discussion.

> your categorical and condescending tone
> is highly disturbing and shows that you are not here to learn or solve
> problems

Yes I am. And I already found many interesting one. 'Solved some.

> but to prove your own self-worth by insulting other people.

*You* were insulting, but never mind.

> But let me leave it aside. I took my time to find a good explanation
> for you of what probabilists mean when talking about the sigma algebra
> on a discrete space.

Thanks, I know what a sigma-algebra is. I did forget, however, it's always
possible to separate blocks in discrete case.

> Does this explanation make more sense to you than my attempts at
> expalining it to you?

You didn't attempt anything before - hence my accusation of trolling

> My advice to you: if you want to learn something, try not to insult
> those who take their time to teach you

Teach me that an integer is random ? Hey, you dream, and that's not an
insult here. The fact that I got the last point wrong may not allow you to
forget all the others *you* got wrong. It's not simply a game "who's wrong,
who's right", I don't care, what I was looking for was a proof for a
realistic problem. Even if it is difficult. You weren't able to provide one,
and used woolly arguments, to say the least. Please don't forget that.

And since you are talking about insults, just see your own posts in other
threads. You seem no to know they are archived.

> and to give suggestions as to
> how to explain the hypothesis that you want to prove.

I have explained, for long time now, that I need no explanation. I
understand very well the theorem *must* hold. Be it for statistical reason.
But it's not a proof. You simply cannot play with integers like if they were
random.

.