There is an infinite number of reals between 0 and 1.Therefore, the chance of picking any single real number between 0 and 1 is zero.So how can you pick a real number (or anything from an infinite set) at random?
>>16259236infinitesimals =/= 0You sound like the retards that claim .999...=1 when you say that the chance is 0
>>16259236>how>randomChoose one. Randomness is the opposite of methodological. >b...but my middle school math book about randomly selecting marbles No. The entire set of marbles does not even exist within or without space-time.
>>16259250I have a set of infinity 1s I pick 1whoa
>>16259242>>16259267so what if I want to pick a random rational number from 0 to 1what is the chance that I pick 1/2?>>16259250hi, i would like actual answers from real mathfags, not schizo "i'm smarter than you without trying" fags like you. thanks
The probability of picking a specific real number between 0 and 1 is not 0 but in fact 1/(aleph1). Because the sum of all possible probabilities must be 1 and 0*aleph1 is 0, that means that the probability is infinitesimal rather than being 0.
>>16259270>what is the chance that I pick 1/2?Pretty high since while you WANT TO pick at random you are incapable of actually doing so and 1/2 is a pretty obvious choice so maybe about 1/3 chance that it is your "random" pickAlso, only a finite amount of rational numbers can be represented or conceived of within a finite universe during a finite amount of time so the very concept of picking a random from an infinite set of uniques is only applicable to thought experiments (wherein the probability is 1/infinity and the infinity in question is equal to the total number of rations in the set; keep in mind not all infinities are equal; if you truly want to know more then research hyperreals and read Keisler's Infinitesimal Approach)
>>16259272pseud
>>16259279>hi, i would like actual answers from real mathfags, not schizo "i'm smarter than you without trying" fags like you. thanksdon't make me tap the sign
>>16259236There are infinite stars in the Universe yet you can still pick one at random. Just look up and point. Your logic is flawed.
>>16259326>>16259333How are you both so wrong.
>>16259333>>16259326How are you both so wrong.
>>16259333I'm conflicted. These are the trips of truth but you're blatantly retarded... is there now an infinite number of stars in the observable universe? Can any normies itt go outside to check this?
>>16259236You can't actually. You can only pick from finite sets at random. But sometimes when those finite sets are very large it's useful to model this as picking from an infinite set, as long as you stay away from things that make this break down like non-measurable sets or conditioning on measure zero sets.
>>16259236>infinitenice try shekelstein
>>16259413cool it with the anti semitism
What’s more strange is that to even exist without knowledge of your existence is more probable than existing with knowledge of your existence. Uwu
