Re: Probability in an infinite sample space


Han de Bruijn wrote:
Robert Low wrote:
Han de Bruijn wrote:
But e = 1/n and that depends on n .
No, e is an infinitesimal. That's just a very small number,
remember?
Isn't e = 1/n just a very small number iff n is very large?
and
The infinitesimal is defined _before_ you take the limit.

I don't see any point in continuing with this: you want e to be
a fixed infinitesimal one sentence, but when that's inconvenient,
to be dependent on some n. You have to regurgitate a lot
of cake to do this.

But OK, fine. Play this game---you'll just have to find somebody
else to play with.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Probability in an infinite sample space
    ... Han de Bruijn wrote: ... of cake to do this. ... Play this game---you'll just have to find somebody ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Why exp(-st) in the Laplace Transform?
    ... On 11/25/2004 12:17 PM, Han de Bruijn wrote: ... Thank you Han, ... The first reason for me to submit to ... viel schneidiger unternommen, doch gänzlich mißlang und jetzt zumal, wo ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Why exp(-st) in the Laplace Transform?
    ... On 11/25/2004 12:17 PM, Han de Bruijn wrote: ... Thank you Han, ... The first reason for me to submit to ... viel schneidiger unternommen, doch gänzlich mißlang und jetzt zumal, wo ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Empirical Utility of Dualism
    ... > Han de Bruijn wrote: ... > have no idea about what really can be done in finite (puzzle) time. ... > The "combinatorial explosion" is a red herring. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Another Inconvenient Truth
    ... Han de Bruijn wrote: ... All I've said is that "potential infinite ... If a mathematical model is not the "real thing," ...
    (sci.math)