Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Computable Numbers

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-10 22:01

Almost all real numbers are non-computable.
Blows my mind.
Discuss.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-11 3:35

Almost all
Talking about an infinite set.

HURR FUCKING DURR

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-11 4:36

>>2
HURR
DURR

Back to the imageboards, please

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-11 5:13

I suppose algorithms relying on "get a digit randomly" are disqualified then

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-11 9:03

>>2
Yes, meaning the set of computable numbers is countable.

>>4
If you were getting a random digit, then you wouldn't know which number you were computing, so yes, I don't think that qualifies.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 19:49

>>2

Yes, almost all.

On a basic level, there are many different infinite cardinalities, so for example any countably infinite set is neglible in an uncountable one, and so it's complement can be considered to be 'almost all'

In a more precise way measure theory allows us to define sets of measure 0 and so a statement P(x) is said to hold 'almost always' if {x : not P(x)} has measure 0.

So for example, even an uncountable set can be neglible in an uncountable set with the 'obvious; (Lesbesgue) measure, consider for example the cantor set.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 20:59

>>6
Stop talking out your ass, kid. Or at least spend a few more minutes on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost
In set theory, when dealing with sets of infinite size, the term almost or nearly is used to mean all the elements except for finitely many.

Just admit that you (and OP if not the same person) have failed. Boo hoo. Get over it. Sage.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 21:28

>>7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_all

"...or "all but a countable set" (formally, a cocountable set); see almost.

When speaking about the reals, sometimes it means "all reals but a set of Lebesgue measure zero" (formally, almost everywhere). "

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-18 15:49

>>7
Kid? I'm doing a masters in maths. My post was informative and factually correct, something wikipedia is almost always not.

(Not OP)

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-18 21:27

>>9
Wikipedia physics and math articles are usually very good.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-11 13:56

>>9
When it becomes a semantic battle - being able to tell OP is using correct semantics and not just "almost all" to just mean what it literally says - then you're grasping for straws.  I'd suggest trying a less obtuse argument.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List