Warp wrote:
>   I'd say that the probability being 1 with infinite throws is exactly as
> meaningful as the probability of getting a certain value of a continuous
> range being 0. Yes, it's mathematically zero, but that doesn't mean that

	Which was my whole long winded point. The monkey problem is identical
to this one.

> the value will never be chosen (if it meant that, it would mean that no
> value would *ever* be chosen because all the individual values have a
> probability of zero).

	In classical probability, that's kind of the case. Perhaps it's better
to say that the model is only valid if you're talking of an interval or
collection of intervals (my interpretation - not necessarily shared by
probabilists). I was pointing out that if it's flawed to use this model
to calculate the probability of getting a single point, it's equally
flawed in trying to calculate the probability of getting all heads, or
of monkeys producing the works of Shakespeare.


-- 
"Now we all know map companies hire guys who specialize in making map
folding a physical impossibility" - Adult Kevin Arnold in "Wonder Years"


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

Post a reply to this message