Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: the probability theory has holes!
Replies: 31   Last Post: Dec 3, 2009 7:55 PM

 Search Thread: Advanced Search

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 ostap_bender_1900@hotmail.com Posts: 681 Registered: 2/1/08
Re: the probability theory has holes!
Posted: Dec 3, 2009 9:33 AM
 Plain Text Reply

On Dec 1, 11:39 am, James Burns <burns...@osu.edu> wrote:
> eestath wrote:
> > What i had in mind is Eratosthenes  Sieve:
>
> > for 2: we exlude the first 1/2
>
> > for 3:then we exclude   1/3 but half of them
> > have factor 2 so we actually exclude 1/2*3

>
> > for 5:then we exclude   1/5 but half of them
> > have factor 2 and 1/3 have factor 3 so we
> > actually exclude 1/2*3*5

>
> Right here is the problem: "1/3 have factor 3".
> What you want is "2/3 DO NOT have factor 3".
> The 1/3 with factor 3 have already been excluded.
> Another 1/5 of the fraction ( 1 - 1/2 )*( 1 - 1/3 )
> that do not have either 2 or 3 as a factor is
> what you want to exclude for the next step.
>
> And ( 1 - 1/2 )*( 1 - 1/3 )*1/5 = 1/15.
>

> > So the Series is 1=1/2  + 1/(2*3) + 1/(2*3*5)+....
>
> Another way to look at this:
>
> (fraction not div by 2)*(fraction not div by 3)*
>     (fraction not div by 5)* ...
>     =   (fraction not div by any prime)
>
> which means
>
> ( 1 - 1/2 )*( 1 - 1/3 )*( 1 - 1/5 )* ...  =  0
>
> If you are not already familiar with the Riemann
> zeta function, then I think you would find this
> very interesting:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_zeta_function#Euler_product_formula
>

> > You answer but you are actually wrong!!!!!!!!!!
>
> One of the more pleasant surprises on the Internet
> is finding someone who will admit that they were wrong
> (when they finally understand that they were wrong).
>
> I wonder, are you going to surprise us?
>

I have a surprise for him: the uniform measure on Z+ (or any other
infinite countable set) doesn't exist, so there can be no valid
probability arguments of this sort.

Date Subject Author
12/1/09 eestath
12/1/09 Kook Spotter
12/1/09 Bart Goddard
12/1/09 eestath
12/1/09 Bart Goddard
12/1/09 eestath
12/1/09 Jim Burns
12/1/09 Bart Goddard
12/1/09 Pubkeybreaker
12/1/09 Bart Goddard
12/1/09 Gerry Myerson
12/1/09 Bart Goddard
12/1/09 eestath
12/2/09 Dik T. Winter
12/2/09 Bart Goddard
12/2/09 eestath
12/2/09 Bart Goddard
12/2/09 eestath
12/3/09 Bart Goddard
12/2/09 eestath
12/1/09 Nick
12/2/09 Dik T. Winter
12/3/09 ostap_bender_1900@hotmail.com
12/3/09 Jim Burns
12/3/09 FredJeffries@gmail.com
12/2/09 Dik T. Winter
12/1/09 Henry
12/1/09 eestath
12/1/09 eestath
12/2/09 Richard Tobin
12/1/09 eestath
12/3/09 ostap_bender_1900@hotmail.com

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.