Re: Positive random number
- From: roberson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Walter Roberson)
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:04:31 +0000 (UTC)
In article <ebd1c529-c0fa-4e17-96e3-08ce9d73fb6f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<jameskuyper@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm familiar with this meaning for "almost all", and I think you've
misapplied it. I don't remember the precise definition, but I believe
that the entire set has to be infinitely bigger than the set of
exceptions. For instance, a function that is 0 for all real values,
except that it is 1 for all integers, then that function is 0 "almost
everywhere". I don't believe that the set of mathematicians is
infinitely larger than the subset who hold those opinions.
"Almost all non-negative even numbers less than 1 google are non-prime."
Is "1 google" infinite? No. Is the statement true? I think nearly
everyone (who knows what prime numbers are) would agree that it is
true.
"1 google" is close enough to "infinity" for -practical- purposes as to
make no difference, but I -believe- that if you change "google"
to "million" or even "thousand" that very close to the same number
of people would continue to agree that the modified statement is true.
I believe if you reduced the number down to 20 that the disagreement
rate would be very nearly the same; even at 11 I don't think the
disagreement rate would be significantly higher.
Now, if you reduced the limit to 3 then I could imagine people
getting bothered about the wording, since "almost all" in that case
would be empty. At 4 or 5 then the "almost all" sample size would
be the same as the size of the alternative and people might still
get flustered about the wording. But I believe that one single
exception out of a relatively small set would still broadly be agreed
as the rest being "almost all". I suspect that the psychology of
"almost all" gets more muddy when there are multiple exceptions.
--
We regret to announce that sub-millibarn resolution bio-hyperdimensional
plasmatic space polyimaging has been delayed until the release
of Windows Vista SP2.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Positive random number
- From: jameskuyper
- Re: Positive random number
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: Positive random number
- From: Ben Pfaff
- Re: Positive random number
- References:
- Positive random number
- From: deepak
- Re: Positive random number
- From: James Kuyper
- Re: Positive random number
- From: Johannes Bauer
- Re: Positive random number
- From: jameskuyper
- Positive random number
- Prev by Date: Re: Annoying compiler warning
- Next by Date: Re: smuggling data in and out of alarm handlers and the like
- Previous by thread: Re: Positive random number
- Next by thread: Re: Positive random number
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|