Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 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.

Yes. But I meant my probability of hitting *any* rational number is zero.

>     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.

I think that was the technical term I saw, yes. Just seemed strange. Not 
wrong, but strange. :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message