Furthermore, what is the probability of choosing the number 42 from the set of all real numbers?

None.

What is the probability of choosing the number 42 from the set of all integers?

Furthermore, what is the probability of choosing the number 42 from the set of all real numbers?

Furthermore, what is the probability of choosing the number 42 from the set of all real numbers?

None.

Okay so the chance of choosing choosing 42 out of all integers or real numbers is 1/*x*, where *x* is the number of real numbers or integers (both infinity). Take the limit as *x* goes to infinity, and you get lim *x* --> inf, 1/*x* = 0.

The chance of choosing 42 in either case is 0.

The chance of choosing 42 in either case is 0.

None.

Quote from Madroc

Okay so the chance of choosing choosing 42 out of all integers or real numbers is 1/*x*, where *x* is the number of real numbers or integers (both infinity). Take the limit as *x* goes to infinity, and you get lim *x* --> inf, 1/*x* = 0.

The chance of choosing 42 in either case is 0.

The chance of choosing 42 in either case is 0.

None.

Assuming all elements in your sets are equally likely to be chosen, the answer is 0 for both cases.

None.

Quote

But it can't be zero, because it's possible to choose 42. Therefore, it must be a number above 0.

None.

Quote from BeDazed

Quote

But it can't be zero, because it's possible to choose 42. Therefore, it must be a number above 0.

None.

So there's no chance of picking any number at random out of infinity?

http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/09/why-generation-y-yuppies-are-unhappy.html

"We're being taught to hate downwards"

"We're being taught to hate downwards"

Limit near 0 is not the same as 0.

Close enough for me not to give a shit, though.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Nov 5 2011, 3:55 pm by Tuxedo-Templar.

Close enough for me not to give a shit, though.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Nov 5 2011, 3:55 pm by Tuxedo-Templar.

None.

How could it be zero? It is completely possible that I could draw a random number out of the hat and it be 42.

None.

Quote from name:Tuxedo-Templar

Limit near 0 is not the same as 0.

Close enough for me not to give a shit, though.

Close enough for me not to give a shit, though.

Yay, statistics!

Actually, if you had infinite life, infinite energy, and infinite will to pull out integers from a magic hat containing all integers, until the integer 42 has been pulled out, then I think the probability wouldn't be zero. Though this statement is the one thing that really needs citation.

Real number has an infinite amount of numbers in any given interval. And it's pretty obvious to anyone that +0, -0 on the notation is not an actual zero but limit near zero, otherwise I wouldn't have had the need to put such efforts in putting the zeros.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 6 2011, 10:39 am by BeDazed.

Real number has an infinite amount of numbers in any given interval. And it's pretty obvious to anyone that +0, -0 on the notation is not an actual zero but limit near zero, otherwise I wouldn't have had the need to put such efforts in putting the zeros.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 6 2011, 10:39 am by BeDazed.

None.

Quote from Sacrieur

How could it be zero? It is completely possible that I could draw a random number out of the hat and it be 42.

Let me know where you managed to get one of those.

https://www.collaborativefund.com/blog/how-this-all-happened/

https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html

https://youtu.be/vyiXaCRwZTs

https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/09/how_to_be_mean_to_your_kids.html

http://lab.cccb.org/en/renata-avila-the-internet-of-creation-disappeared-now-we-have-the-internet-of-surveillance-and-control/

https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html

https://youtu.be/vyiXaCRwZTs

https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/09/how_to_be_mean_to_your_kids.html

http://lab.cccb.org/en/renata-avila-the-internet-of-creation-disappeared-now-we-have-the-internet-of-surveillance-and-control/

You're asking for a number for 1/infinity, which is like asking for a number for 1/0; you're not going to get a number.

The answer is infinitesimal. Those saying limit zero are also right.

The answer is infinitesimal. Those saying limit zero are also right.

Learn how EUDs work: __A Mapmaker's Guide for Creating EUDs__

Don't like learning?:__EUDGen 2__

Other stuff:__Farlap__ __Bound Maker__

Dash:__1__ __2__ __3__ __4__ __5__ __6__ __7__ __8__ __9__ __X__

Jog:__Original__ __Warp__

Other:__Super Mario SC__ __Fireball__ __Guard Your Civilian__ __Strength Contest__

Don't like learning?:

Other stuff:

Dash:

Jog:

Other:

It appears our attempts to dissuade people from the answer was unsuccessful. This is a very counter-intuitive problem to most people, and the fact nearly all of the responses claimed zero is somewhat reassuring in humanity. Although, allow me to clear up some points.

1/n, n → ∞ is 0. This zero is not special in any way, and is the same as all other zeroes. That is to say the probability of choosing the number 42 is zero, even if you choose the number. It can happen, but it is statistically impossible.

The set of all integers is an aleph-null set (a designation of infinite sets). This is because the set is composed of countable entities. If we expand the set to all real numbers, we are working in aleph-one: which is a degree higher. Regardless, the probability is the same for both the aleph-null and aleph-one set.

The probabability of choosing 42 out of real numbers in the given interval [42-0, 42+0] is 0.

I understand what you're saying, but it is the same as [42, 42], which only contains one number (1/n → ∞ doesn't change how the zero behaves). If you wished to designate a neighborhood around 42, the proper calculus designation would be (41, 43).

This actually can be solved by playing around with limits and convergence tests. Infinite trials would result in a 100% chance of success in an aleph-null set. In an aleph-one set, the chance of success would still be zero.

I think you mean set.

Actually limits demonstrate that 1/∞ is equal to zero. The answer is zero, through the same logic that 0.999 ... = 1

1/n, n → ∞ is 0. This zero is not special in any way, and is the same as all other zeroes. That is to say the probability of choosing the number 42 is zero, even if you choose the number. It can happen, but it is statistically impossible.

The set of all integers is an aleph-null set (a designation of infinite sets). This is because the set is composed of countable entities. If we expand the set to all real numbers, we are working in aleph-one: which is a degree higher. Regardless, the probability is the same for both the aleph-null and aleph-one set.

Quote from BeDazed

Quote

But it can't be zero, because it's possible to choose 42. Therefore, it must be a number above 0.

I understand what you're saying, but it is the same as [42, 42], which only contains one number (1/n → ∞ doesn't change how the zero behaves). If you wished to designate a neighborhood around 42, the proper calculus designation would be (41, 43).

Quote from BeDazed

Actually, if you had infinite life, infinite energy, and infinite will to pull out integers from a magic hat containing all integers, until the integer 42 has been pulled out, then I think the probability wouldn't be zero. Though this statement is the one thing that really needs citation.

This actually can be solved by playing around with limits and convergence tests. Infinite trials would result in a 100% chance of success in an aleph-null set. In an aleph-one set, the chance of success would still be zero.

Quote from ShadowFlare

Impossible to do without a fixed range, so the probability that you could do this is 0.

I think you mean set.

Quote from Roy

You're asking for a number for 1/infinity, which is like asking for a number for 1/0; you're not going to get a number.

The answer is infinitesimal. Those saying limit zero are also right.

The answer is infinitesimal. Those saying limit zero are also right.

Actually limits demonstrate that 1/∞ is equal to zero. The answer is zero, through the same logic that 0.999 ... = 1

None.

That's a fantastic game of Theorycraft you're playing there, but let's put this into perspective by going back to the originally proposed situation.

The scenario was, you build a computer to simulate the current state of the universe. Within that simulation, a simulated you has done the same thing at the same time. The computer is powerful to the point of being able to create an infinite number of universes-within-universes in this manner. Each version of you believes they are the real one.

You said that there was a literal 0% chance of being the "real" one, that it was equivalent to choosing a number from an infinite set, so there was no "real" one.

However, one second before flipping the switch to turn the simulator on, there was only one universe, and that remained perfectly intact and unchanged upon turning the machine on.

I propose that the mathematics presented in this thread are completely arbitrary and irrelevant to the situation. If you wanted to apply them, then you would have to look at it as a single real universe which is separate from an infinite set of simulated ones. Lumping the real universe in with all the fakes and then saying it's impossible to be in the real one because lolmath is completely nonsensical on every level.

The scenario was, you build a computer to simulate the current state of the universe. Within that simulation, a simulated you has done the same thing at the same time. The computer is powerful to the point of being able to create an infinite number of universes-within-universes in this manner. Each version of you believes they are the real one.

You said that there was a literal 0% chance of being the "real" one, that it was equivalent to choosing a number from an infinite set, so there was no "real" one.

However, one second before flipping the switch to turn the simulator on, there was only one universe, and that remained perfectly intact and unchanged upon turning the machine on.

I propose that the mathematics presented in this thread are completely arbitrary and irrelevant to the situation. If you wanted to apply them, then you would have to look at it as a single real universe which is separate from an infinite set of simulated ones. Lumping the real universe in with all the fakes and then saying it's impossible to be in the real one because lolmath is completely nonsensical on every level.

An event with probability zero occurs *almost never*. This is NOT the same thing as an *impossible* event, which is forbidden from occurring (such as picking 3.2 from the set of integers). As was said, if you pick a number at random from the reals, whatever number you will pick will have had a probability of zero of being chosen.

Here's a more interesting thought. Between any two irrational numbers exists a rational number, yet if you choose a real number at random, it will almost surely (meaning "with probability 1") be irrational.

Here's a more interesting thought. Between any two irrational numbers exists a rational number, yet if you choose a real number at random, it will almost surely (meaning "with probability 1") be irrational.

None.

Quote from Sacrieur

Quote from ShadowFlare

Impossible to do without a fixed range, so the probability that you could do this is 0.

I think you mean set.

None.

Quote from JaFF

Assuming all elements in your sets are equally likely to be chosen, the answer is 0 for both cases.

For example, the popularity of the book "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" will skew the probability in favor of the number 42. I would also impose a skew towards numbers within the order 10^2, I would disregard all irrational numbers except the well known ones like pi and e, I would favor any multiple of 10 or 5, I would disregard any rational number requiring a decimal expansion of more than 10 or so digits, ect ect ect.

I also don't agree that the question is fully defined.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 8 2011, 8:21 am by Vrael.

None.

[11:29 pm]

Zoan -- Oh_ManOh_Man shouted: yeah i'm tryin to go through all the greatest hits and get the runs up on youtube so my senile ass can appreciate them more readily

You should do my Delirus map too; it's a little cocky to say but I still think it's actually just a good game lol[08:20 pm]

Ultraviolet -- Goons were functioning like stalkers, I think a valk was made into a banshee, all sorts of cool shit[08:20 pm]

Ultraviolet -- Oh wait, no I saw something else. It was more melee style, and guys were doing warpgate shit and morphing lings into banelings (Infested terran graphics)[08:18 pm]

Ultraviolet -- Oh_ManOh_Man shouted: lol SC2 in SC1: https://youtu.be/pChWu_eRQZI

oh ya I saw that when Armo posted it on Discord, pretty crazy[08:09 pm]

Vrael -- thats less than half of what I thought I'd need, better figure out how to open SCMDraft on windows 11[08:08 pm]

Vrael -- Oh_ManOh_Man shouted: yeah i'm tryin to go through all the greatest hits and get the runs up on youtube so my senile ass can appreciate them more readily

so that gives me approximately 27 more years to finish tenebrous before you get to it?