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: Continuous and discrete uniform distributions of N
Replies: 27   Last Post: Dec 28, 2012 9:45 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 ross.finlayson@gmail.com Posts: 2,720 Registered: 2/15/09
Re: Continuous and discrete uniform distributions of N
Posted: Dec 27, 2012 12:17 AM

On Dec 26, 9:30 am, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 5:50 am, gus gassmann <g...@nospam.com> wrote:
>

> > On 25/12/2012 5:57 AM, Butch Malahide wrote:
>
> > > Did anyone say anything about wishing sets of equal cardinality all to
> > > have the same probability?

>
> > The subject line says "uniform distributions". What can that mean OTHER
> > than "sets of equal cardinality have equal measure"?

>
> In the case of the continuous uniform distribution on the interval
> [0,1], it means that "intervals of the same length have equal
> measure." All intervals have the same cardinality, but their measures
> vary.
>
> I'm not sure what it means for a (finitely additive) measure on N.
> Perhaps, that all points have equal measure (which would have to be
> zero)? Or that sets of the same natural density should have equal
> measures? Maybe it should be translation-invariant?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > > Is that what the OP was talking about? I
> > > didn't try to read his post, as it seemed kind of obscure. Of course
> > > it's not possible, in an infinite sample space, for sets of the same
> > > cardinality all to have the same probability.

>
> > Bingo.

It seems the properties of a uniform (or regular) probability
distribution of the natural integers would have the properties that
the probability of each value of the sample space and here support set
would be equal.

Then as these sum to one then this value would be infinitesimal and 1/
omega and yes we all know that's not a standard real number, or
rather: not a member of the Archimedean complete ordered field (and 1/
omega is an element of non-Archimedean extra-complete ordered fields
like the surreal numbers, which include all the real numbers as
described, for example, by Ehrlich or Conway.)

Here then as well I would actually described that instead they are
elements of the continuum best represented by the ring of iota-values,
with rather-restricted transfer principle, in that the elements of
continuum as iota-values and elements of the continuum as complete
ordered field are the same thing, but they have different
representations and obviously their rules of formation and
manipulation are different. Their properties as magnitudes hold.

Then, with regards to the probability of elements from U(n) or U_c(n)
and U_d(n) for the "continuous" and "discrete" uniform probability
distributions of natural integers being in particular subsets of the
natural integers, then as above how the U(r) or U(x) would be
represented by measure, here the notion would be as to density, and
from du Bois-Reymond, then to cardinality only for the finite, which
is then basically simply of multiplicity and only coincidentally
cardinality. P(n even | n e N) = 1/2, "the probability of n being
even given n is from the naturals is one half", P(n e {1,2}) = P(n e
{3, 4}), "the probability of n being 1 or 2 is the same as n being 3
or 4", where here it is implicit that the probability is regular and
uniform.

This is simply founded with treating the probabilities as opaque
quantities with additivity, simply underdefined, as to satisfying the
general sense of rigor. Of course, that is merely apologetics, where
the true inquiry is to the actual nature of these quantities.

So, the probability of any given natural being selected at uniform
random from all the natural integers is obviously: the same as that
of any other. It is that first, then as to how to divide the unity of
the sum of those probabilities equally among them is in then to
developments in foundations of real numbers as to support the
reasonable expectations thereof. And, there is longstanding tradition
in the discussion since antiquity as to ruminations on the nature of
these things. Yet, since Cauchy and Weierstrass, and Cantor, many of
those lines of inquiry as posed by our greatest thinkers do not have
their historical place in the context, of the infinitely divisible and
infinitely divided, for the potentially and complete infinity.

And: the only way to line up the points of the line is in a line, and
in the line. Draw the line. EF starts that.

In earlier discussions on this as well I described a framework for
constructing U(n) in ZFC. As well, as above it's described as modeled
by real functions. Again that's to appease the modern, for the avenue
to the real, and concrete, and of the continuum, and, in the
continuum, as divisible, and as divided, as composed.

Then it's a reasonable notion to consider the infinitesimals as the
unity as divisible and the unity as divided in a similar manner as to
consideration of the infinity as the unity potentially and the unity
completely.

Regards,

Ross Finlayson

Date Subject Author
12/20/12 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/21/12 FredJeffries@gmail.com
12/21/12 Bill Taylor
12/22/12 Porky Pig Jr
12/22/12 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/24/12 FredJeffries@gmail.com
12/22/12 David Bernier
12/22/12 Butch Malahide
12/24/12 FredJeffries@gmail.com
12/24/12 Butch Malahide
12/25/12 Virgil
12/25/12 Butch Malahide
12/25/12 Virgil
12/25/12 Butch Malahide
12/25/12 Virgil
12/25/12 Butch Malahide
12/26/12 gus gassmann
12/26/12 Butch Malahide
12/27/12 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/27/12 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/28/12 Virgil
12/28/12 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/28/12 Virgil
12/28/12 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/28/12 Virgil
12/28/12 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/25/12 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
12/25/12 Butch Malahide