Re: Calculus XOR Probability
- From: cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 7 Apr 2006 13:26:46 -0700
Han de Bruijn wrote:
cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
What does surprise me is that you don't see the obvious parallel
between my reasoning that since lim (n*(2/n))=2, therefore the diagonal
has length 2; and your reasoning that since the lim (n*(1/n))=1, that
therefore there must exist a uniform distribution on the naturals.
Since you seem to be in desperate need of a nonsense argument, I'll give
you one.
<snip amusing silliness>
End of nonsense argument.
But, according to Randy Poe and Robert Low, it is _valid_, because as
a physicist, I "meant" to say something different ...
What does your reply have to do with lim (n*(2/n)) = 2 implies the
length of the diagonal = 2, or that lim (n*1/n)=1 implies a uniform
distribution over the naturals?
Can you explain why the former reasoning is incorrect, and yet the
latter is correct?
Cheers - Chas
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Calculus XOR Probability
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Calculus XOR Probability
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: Calculus XOR Probability
- References:
- Re: Calculus XOR Probability
- From: David R Tribble
- Re: Calculus XOR Probability
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Calculus XOR Probability
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Calculus XOR Probability
- From: Robert Low
- Re: Calculus XOR Probability
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Calculus XOR Probability
- From: cbrown
- Re: Calculus XOR Probability
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Calculus XOR Probability
- From: cbrown
- Re: Calculus XOR Probability
- Prev by Date: Multiscale Modeling of Materials: Mathematics and Computation, May 06
- Next by Date: Re: Calculus XOR Probability
- Previous by thread: Re: Calculus XOR Probability
- Next by thread: Re: Calculus XOR Probability
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|