Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics

Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Virgil wrote:
>
>> In article <b5982$43ce0b2b$82a1e2b0$22212@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>Virgil wrote:
>>>
>>>>We assume that 1/n -> 0 as n -> oo, which is quite different.
>>>
>>>Is that so? That makes it even easier to define a uniform distribution P
>>>on the naturals. As follows: P(arbitrary natural) = 1/n -> 0 as n -> oo.
>> How does one parse "P(arbitrary natural) = 1/n -> 0 as n -> oo"?
>> [P(arbitrary natural) = 1/n] -> 0 as n -> oo or [P(arbitrary
>> natural) = [1/n -> 0 as n -> oo]
>> ?
>
> Neither of the two (second expression is wrong). But:
>
> P(arbitrary natural) = [1/n -> 0 as n -> oo]

That makes no particular sense. The probability P(arbitrary natural)
is a number, right? A number in [0,1], right? I don't know what that
thing on the right is. Is it a number? If so, which one?

Zero perhaps or something else?

Did you mean:

P({k}) = lim_{n->oo} 1/n

so P({k}) = 0? If so, why not write P(arbitrary natural) = 0?

--
Jesse F. Hughes
"I don't know if you noticed but I had a tremendous drop in confidence
concomittant [sic] with a dramatic grip of existential crisis."
--- James S. Harris even has better diseases than you
.

Relevant Pages