Re: Calculus XOR Probability

David C. Ullrich wrote:

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:27:03 +0100, Han de Bruijn
<Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Calculus says that the outcome is 1 , while Probability Theory says
that, instead, we must do a dirty trick like this:

lim n.1/n = lim n ( lim 1/a ) = lim 0 = 0
n->oo n->oo a->oo n->oo

Nonsense.

Agreed.

Probability theory says no such thing.

I sincerely hope that you are right.

Han de Bruijn

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
    ... Han de Bruijn wrote: ... a function f is _sensible_ at a iff ... Prove that the above function g is nonsense at 0. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
    ... Han de Bruijn wrote: ... The term "nonsense" therefore has a formal meaning. ... the same word in common speech is therefore entirely by coincidence huh? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Another Inconvenient Truth
    ... Han de Bruijn wrote: ... Han de Bruijn wrote: ... what is the framework in which you're asking the ... Within the nonsense framework in which the question is posed. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
    ... Han de Bruijn wrote: ... Either way, you are ineducable and unwilling to educate yourself, so ... nonsense is nonsense. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
    ... Han de Bruijn wrote: ... a function f is _sensible_ at a iff ... Prove that the above function g is nonsense at 0. ...
    (sci.math)