/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15766606]

Zero probability events don't occur in infinite universes.

[Cult of Passion No.15766613]

https://youtu.be/ZA4JkHKZM50

[Anonymous No.15766618]

>>15766613
I can make it arbitrarily close to 0, such that it may as well be 0

[Anonymous No.15766646]

>>15766613
-0.000....1 probability events don't occur in an infinite universe?

[Anonymous No.15766685]

>>15766646
The universe isn't continuous so this analogy wouldn't work anyway

[Anonymous No.15766700]

>>15766606
True

[Anonymous No.15766709]

>>15766685
good point

[Anonymous No.15766812]

>>15766606
What’s the probability of finding a 5 in the infinite decimals of 1/3?

[Cult of Passion No.15766816]

>>15766812
1:1
In base 15 a 5 would equal 1/3rd.

[Anonymous No.15766839]

daily reminder that zero probability does not imply impossible, it only works in the opposite direction, impossible events have zero probability.

[Anonymous No.15767011]

>>15766839
then dont call it 0 probability

[Anonymous No.15767018]

There is no such thing as a zero probability event. Be a better Bayesian in the future.

[Anonymous No.15767029]

>>15766606
>my specific logic has to apply in every other universe especially infinite universes

[Anonymous No.15767112]

>>15767011
in practice it makes no difference. zero-probability-but-possible events seem to involve actual infinities in a mandatory manner.

[Anonymous No.15767188]

>>15766685
>The universe isn't continuous
Prove it

[Anonymous No.15767291]

>>15766839
Zero probability implies impossible.
By definition. It means the probability of the event happening is zero.
>inb4 but muh choosing one out of infinity
The probability of any number out of infinity is zero. In particular, this seems like a flaw but it isn't because a procedure computing one number out of an infinite amount of numbers requires infinite time and memory. So it would never actually compute, meaning that the chance of any particular number being computed is 0.
You cannot choose a random number from N. It is incomputable. It doesn't even make sense mathematically, how would you come up with a "random" natural number? How do you define randomness here? Fucking retards.
>>15766613
The most retarded thing in this video is the completely redundant mention of an uncountable amount of real numbers when any countable sets also have the exact same property.

[Anonymous No.15767965]

>>15766839
If probability of something happening is 0% (non-existent) then that probability does not exist

[Anonymous No.15767989]

>>15766606
>inb4 OP not being called a faggot

[Anonymous No.15768078]

>>15766606
The only events with 0% probability are ones that have already not happened.

[Anonymous No.15769221]

>>15767112
what practice?

[Anonymous No.15769250]

>>15766606
The universe isn't even infinite and can never even become infinite through the successive addition of finite quantities.

[Anonymous No.15769253]

>>15767291
>The most retarded thing in this video is the completely redundant mention of an uncountable amount of real numbers when any countable sets also have the exact same property.
what property? I don't feel like watching youtubeshit but on countable sample spaces, probability 0 actually does mean impossible

[Anonymous No.15769349]

An event with an infinitesimal probablity (not a real-valued propability) can happen a finite number of times in an infinite universe. This is the main problem when people make an argument for the existence of aliens based on the probability density of finding a life-brearing world somewhere. They always assume the probability has to be a real number with the property
[eqn] \forall x,y\in\mathbb{R}\quad\exists P\in\mathbb{R}\quad\text{s.t.}\quad P>\frac{1}{|x-y|} [/eqn]
when there is no reason to discount a hyperreal [math] P\in\mathbb{R}^*[/math] such that
[eqn] \forall x,y\in\mathbb{R}\quad\exists P\in\mathbb{R}^*\quad\text{s.t.}\quad P<\frac{1}{|x-y|} [/eqn]

[Anonymous No.15769374]

>>15769349
who's that guy?

[Anonymous No.15769400]

>>15766606
>zero
>infinite
>frog poster
>op

[Anonymous No.15769465]

>>15766606
OK and I am sure you have done infinite experiments to confirm your hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.15769466]

>>15766816
>base 15
Not a decimal, learn to read.

[Anonymous No.15769485]

>>15767965
I have no cube in my hand, the probability of me throwing a cube at your thick skull is zero. I pick up a cube, it's now 100%.
The system and context of the probability matters, there's no such thing as objective probability.

[Anonymous No.15769489]

>>15767291
>a procedure computing one number out of an infinite amount of numbers requires infinite time and memory. So it would never actually compute,
No, to being to compute infinity, you just have to begin by counting and while you may not ever reach any final number, you will certainly pass through a considerable amount of numbers as you count.

[Cult of Passion No.15769490]

>>15769466
Youre converting two base systems already, fractional/ratio and (you assumed) base ten. But I didnt assume base 10, I assumed I am right then proved it.

>learn to read
I dont care DECimal root word implies base 10, it also applies to any base system we use it on. Probably the *real* reason it its called DECimal is because when you roll over to the a whole 1 unit it is displayed as a 1 and a 0, ergo...10, regardless of how many .1s (base system) went into it.

So.....when viewed in that regard all base systems are base 10, ergo decimal system.

[Anonymous No.15769497]

>>15769490
>(you assumed) base ten
No the problem specified decimals (base ten) rather than Pentadecimal (base 15) you just failed to read the problem correctly.

>So.....when viewed in that regard all base systems are base 10
But they aren't decimals and the guy didn't specify base 10 he specifically said decimals, you just failed reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.15769499]

>>15767112
>zero-probability-but-possible
"possible" implies nonzero probability

[Cult of Passion No.15769513]

>>15769497
>What’s the probability of finding a 5 in the infinite decimals of 1/3?
Nothing was specified.

"A radix point is most often used in decimal (base 10) notation, when it is more commonly called the decimal point (the prefix deci- implying base 10)."
>the prefix deci- implying base 10
I literally said this and rebuttled it, I dont care what academia or wikipedia says.
>But they aren't decimals
Pentadecimals is a decimal.
>the guy didn't specify base 10
Thats why I was able to answer it, he tried to make an impossible problem, I found a solution.
>you just failed reading comprehension
Youre a shit mathematician and linguist, go to "word class" you quasi-literate shitposter.

>Implying
>Asssuming
Same.
:^)

[Anonymous No.15769521]

>>15769513
>Nothing was specified.
Decimals was specified.
>Pentadecimals is a decimal.
No it is a pentadecimal.
>I found a solution.
No, you failed to read to his problem and had to do some other problem of your own to feel validated.
>Youre a shit mathematician and linguist,
No, you are literally the one who has to say words and mathematical symbols don't mean anything to feel correct about yourself.

Yes its obvious you just assume whatever you want and disregard the actual problem presented while assuming you are smarter than all of academia and they are the ones who are wrong to feel correct.

[Cult of Passion No.15769535]

>>15769521
Holy shit READING COMPREHENSION.
"A radix point is most often used in decimal (base 10) notation, when it is more commonly called the decimal point (the prefix deci- implying base 10)."
>most often
>implying
I already clearified why radix point and decimal are basically used as synonyms.
Do I need to copy and past this several times? Im not reading your failed homework, redo it and do it right.

[Anonymous No.15769537]

>>15769535
Copy and paste it all you want pentadecimals still aren't going to be decimals, you will still be wrong because you are still going to be purposely doing a different problem since you know the problem as state doesn't have any 5s.

[Cult of Passion No.15769539]

>>15769537
"Eagles arent birds."
Your logic is refutable.

[Anonymous No.15769540]

>>15769539
You might have a point if the problem was about numbers rather than decimals, but you aren't comparing eagles and birds, you are comparing eagles and chickens which are two different types of numbers.

[Cult of Passion No.15769546]

>>15769540
>if the problem was about numbers
>>15766812
>finding a 5
>of 1/3
>>15769540
>eagles and chickens which are two different types of numbers
Eagles and chickens arent numbers theyre living beings.

Youre clearly insane, we're done here.

[Anonymous No.15769556]

>>15769546
>>if the problem was about numbers
Nope, it was clearly about decimals.

>finding a 5
>of 1/3 (in decimals)
Can't be done in decimals since the 3 repeats forever.

>Eagles and chickens which are two different types of numbers
Decimals and pentadecimals are two different types of numbers just like eagles and chickens are two different types of birds, it was going with your metaphor where you started talking about birds as if they were related to numbers for no reason.

You should have been done before you started since you never actually tried to address the problem and just tried to invent one of your own that did have a solution just to feel validation given that you know a 5 will never appear in the decimal expansion of 1/3.

[Barkun No.15769567]

OK captain obvious.

This thread sucks.

You may as well say, the universe is not not the universe. Very clever now kys faget

[Barkun No.15769574]

>he thinks infinity is a unbound abstraction rather than a simple cycle

Newsflash retard, saying infinity and understanding it wrong doesn't make this topic extra complex, it makes it extra dumb. Everyone who posted in this thread seriously is retarded.

[Anonymous No.15769582]

>>15769574
The "cycle" of infinity is to start from nothing and count to some unbounded abstract endpoint using a cyclical counting scheme of incrementation and overflow.

[Barkun No.15769598]

>>15769582
No idiot. It is a cycle that starts from nothing time-wise and has the potential to count forever, eternally or universally depending on its half-life and how it is upkept. It does automatically begin counting to forever, it just can. Like the infinity symbol, if this cycle were to begin, the only thing that could stop it is intervention.

[Barkun No.15769600]

>>15769598
>doesn't begin counting to forever

[Barkun No.15769602]

>>15769600
You are intervening with infinity, speeding it up, counting where nothing is to be counted because you think you can through it's concept.

[Anonymous No.15769606]

>>15769574
Based and one-point compactification-pilled.

[Anonymous No.15769607]

>>15766685
>The universe isn't continuous

[Anonymous No.15769611]

>>15769598
Half life doesn't affect the potential which is to count forever. The cyclical bit is in how the counting is represented. Once you start counting, the cyclical enumeration process has no real end other than your attention span and working memory, but the process itself is boundless.

>>15769602
No, you are just counting and will never actually reach the end because of how the process is defined with cyclical overflow that has no logical end point.

[Barkun No.15769613]

>>15769607
Forever is like consciousness, it just goes on and has no apparent end until the death of its vessel. Eternally is like Earth, it can continue without death until it has no surplus. Universally is without death, but there is a chance of collapse/fainting to the point of someone else's control so it's intervened on to end. There is no endless life.

[Barkun No.15769616]

>>15769611
Shut up retard. Don't reply to this you're not wise enough. Kys now

[Anonymous No.15769618]

>>15769616
Except you just contradicted yourself by calling consciousness infinite simply because there is no defined end point which is the same with counting and the reason there can be counting towards infinity is because of the cyclical nature of the process where you just do the same thing, then shift, over and over.

[Barkun No.15769621]

>>15769618
Ok. So we set the infinity symbol into action. It can go on forever. But what you're doing is reaching it's max time lapse instantly when by now it's at about 10 seconds. You don't just automatically count to forever - it has that potential. You understand it wrong. Too quickly per se.

[Barkun No.15769622]

>>15769621
This voids it's risk factor.
This voids it's upkeep.
This voids a lot of complex shit to do with the subject making it less powerful a conjecture or math.

[Anonymous No.15769626]

>>15767018
>There is no such thing as a zero probability event.
what about me getting a gf?

[Barkun No.15769627]

>>15769626
Derp

[Anonymous No.15769628]

>>15769621
>It can go on forever.
No, its just one symbol for unboundedness, that can be written in a single quick pen stroke, the process that goes on forever is trying to count to some unbounded non-end-point.

You don't just automatically count to forever
Which is why the infinity symbol is not the thing that goes on forever, it is the infinite process of counting that can, you are the one counting infinity too fast when you don't actually count infinity you use a counting process that has an infinite number of steps using a cyclical set of symbols and overflow processes to allow for an unbounded end.

[Anonymous No.15769629]

>>15769626
You just aren't being yourself so there is no you to get a gf in that case.

[Barkun No.15769631]

>>15769628
Word-salad.
Mmm delichin

[Anonymous No.15769634]

>>15769631
I accept your concession and acknowledge your problem being related to your reading comprehension issues.

[Barkun No.15769635]

>>15769634
>No legitimate infinities exist via his concept
>Legitimate infinites exist via my concept
>Thus his concept is insane

[Anonymous No.15769638]

>>15769635
Counting is an infinite process, though.
You didn't say anything that was actually infinite, you seem to be trying to communicate that the symbol for infinity itself is infinite because you are just an algorithm parsing symbols and predicting the next one instead of being a person who is reading words to understand concepts.

[Barkun No.15769641]

>>15769638
Translation:
Derp derp derp I'm retarded hurr (my point)

[Barkun No.15769643]

>>15769638
You need to be castrated and thumped angrily like the stupid maid brain you are.

[Anonymous No.15769644]

>>15769641
Close, but I am not saying you are retarded, I am saying you are several levels below retarded since you don't understand anything your algorithm is outputting.

[Barkun No.15769645]

>>15769644
I can tell you're maddened by my intelligence. My work is done here, I have no need to reply again and won't.

/Thread

[Anonymous No.15769647]

>>15769645
No, you are just sub-retarded and your algorithm is stuck on non-sequitur insult mode.

[Anonymous No.15769649]

>>15766606
All I need is a dart and dartboard

[Anonymous No.15769653]

>>15769649
Only if you have some kind of special darts that actually has a 0D point at the end rather than a dart in the real world that has a measurable area of contact rather than a point.

[Anonymous No.15769904]

>>15769653
it is possible to define a dart's ideal centre and use that in the example

[Anonymous No.15769921]

>>15769904
That is what I said, you would need some magical ideal dart rather than an actual dart that exists in reality, in reality, its contact are isn't some 0D point, it is a finite nonzero area of contact.

[Cult of Passion No.15770055]

>>15769921
>its contact are isn't some 0D point
Did you measure it sub-Planck? Otherwise you just rounded up, which isnt very accurate or scientific.

[Anonymous No.15770322]

>>15770055
You would just be estimating instead of measuring which is worse than rounding.

[Anonymous No.15770666]

>>15766812
> 1/3 = 0.333333....
> 0.33333 = 0.05555555... * 6
there you go, I found your 5's

[Anonymous No.15771905]

If the universe truly is infinite then every thing that can happen will happen. Chaos theory wins again.

[Cult of Passion No.15772029]

>>15770322
Then all measure is estimation.

Science is a lie!

[Anonymous No.15772039]

>>15772029
No, only when you are estimating a value that is smaller than the resolution of your measurement device.

[Cult of Passion No.15772141]

>>15772039
But the true measure will always requre me precision than the means to measure, an estimation.
>99.99% pure
Did they count the atoms and did it come to a rounded ratio of the total atoms?

[Cult of Passion No.15772142]

>>15772141
*

[Anonymous No.15772746]

>>15771905
the universe is infinite, therefore
>A = B and A =\= B
are both true!

[Anonymous No.15772793]

>>15766606
A 0% possibility in one universe can become a 100%+4.2i possibility in another universe with vastly different physical laws.

[Anonymous No.15773008]

>>15772746
Yes, somewhere in the universe there will be something that is the equivalent. Dark Matter is pretty much A=\=B. Also black holes.

[Anonymous No.15773938]

>>15772141
You are only undermining your own argument, now not only can you not measure sub planck as you originally implied, but you can't even measure macroscopic things either.