Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:18:37 +0100
Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
The basic statement is that the probability of a natural being divisible by another natural a is just P(natural | a) = 1/a . Mainstream mathematics says that such a probability does not exist / cannot be defined. They use "densities" instead.
Your syntax seems odd to me. You write:
P(natural | a)
which may mean:
The probability of a natural, given a (????) The probability that natural divides a (????) Something else (????)
The probability of finding the right meaning here is 1/3. But, in the context given, the conditional probability is 1 :-)
Did you mean the probability that a natural n is divisible by a? That *might* be written as P( a | n ), although the pipe symbol is used for other meaning in probability theory.
Yeah. Conditional probability. That is not meant here. And it's quite clear that you have already understood.
And in any case, how could this make any sense at all? How could this probability depend on a and not n?
Did I mention "n" somewhere in _this_ article?
Boy, I can't figure what you mean.
Yes you can. Just think a little bit harder.
Han de Bruijn
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- References:
- Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: david petry
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Next by Date: Re: The 3n+1 Conjecture
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Next by thread: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading