Darren New wrote:
> What is unintuitive to me is that if you draw a numberline on the wall 
> and toss a dart at it (figuratively speaking), your probability of 
> hitting a rational number is zero. That is, there are so many more reals 
> than rationals that the chance of picking a real that's rational at 
> random is literally zero. It would seem there's *some* epsilon chance, 
> but apparently not. :-)

	Well, your probability of hitting a given real number is also 0. Same 
amount of weirdness.

	I was always somewhat uncomfortable with that aspect of probability on 
continuous distributions. Because "in real life" it isn't impossible for 
me to hit right at the center when thrown at random.

	And then there's the whole issue of interpretation of probability and 
especially statistics - I recently got more interested in the basics 
(saw too many funny stats, and wanted to learn it well enough to 
recognize the kooky ones).

	Advanced probability theory involves measure theory - which I have yet 
to study properly. My guess is what you're saying holds true because the 
set of rationals is a set of measure 0 w.r.t. to the measure they use in 
probability.

-- 
"Auntie Em: Hate Kansas. Hate You. Took Dog. -Dorothy."


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message