If you pick a random number from 1 to infinity, the answer is infinity. This is because the odds of getting a 2 digit number are 10x of getting a 1 digit number. And the odds of getting a 3 digit number are 10x of getting a 2 digit number. Therefore, if you choose a random number between negative infinity and infinity the answer is always 0.
>>16795624But then it's not random, is it now?
>runs experiment>returns '14'Where is your God now SCIENCE
>>16795632Why not?
[code]function getRndInteger(min, max) { return Math.floor(Math.random() * (max - min) ) + min;} [/code]getRndInteger(0, Infinity)it's true
>>16795624Generating any one specific from 1 to infinity has a 1/infinity chance, which is zero. However the chance of generating infinity is infinity/infinity, meaning a 100% chance. However, this does not apply when generating from -infinity to infinity, since there are two infinite bounds. It would be a 50/50 chance between -infinity and infinity, not zero.
>>16795661You are retarded.
>>16795636Infinity is a concept, not a number, and even if it were a number a number is not random if there is only one choice. It would be like picking a random integer between two and four. Infinity isn't an answer, it's the intellectual equivalent of dodging the question by smearing yourself with feces and jumping out a window.
>>16795668There are infinity choices, not one. Are you also claiming it is impossible to generate a random number between 1 and 2 (including decimals)? You can figure it out if you do one digit at a time. The pic in OP should help you out; there is a 10x chance of getting 2 digits than 1. Expand into doing that multiple times.
>>16795670>There are infinity choicesyes. but infinity isn't a choice. You are confusing reality with the computational limits of manmade machines.
>>16795678What do machines have to do with this? And of course infinity is a choice.
>>16795680A machine cannot conceive of infinity, hence the cope. You can, but you are so buckbroken by your dependence on technology that you are afraid to look God in the eye and choose a number.>lol infinity lol lol lolStill not a number.
>>16795624Any time you pick a random number with infinity involved, the answer is infinity. -Infinity doesn't change that.
>>16795690This has nothing to do with machines. You can choose a random number with your own head, if it is functioning of course. And btw, machines DO have a concept of infinity. Find my one programming language that doesn't.
>>16795678>>16795690Prove the pic in OP wrong then.
>>16795692How many digits can your calculator display? What about your hard drive? What if you combine all the electronic devices on Earth? Somewhat less than infinity, I reckon.
>>16795701One again, numbers existed before machines. Choosing a random number existed before computers. Heard of a dice?
>>16795701Unlimited.
>>16795701You know the calculators can scroll their display, right?
>>16795624This is actually one of those unsolved problems.
>>16795696Why do I have to prove OP's pic wrong if OP's pic doesn't contain any proof of being right?
>>16795756The pic shows evidence tho?
>>16795758Evidence is not proof
>>16795762The evidence clearly demonstrates the pattern though. Each order of magnitude has 10x more numbers than the previous one. This pattern continues indefinitely, meaning the probability mass keeps getting pushed further and further out toward infinity. Don't be pedantic about evidence vs proof.
>>16795768>Each order of magnitude has 10x more numbers than the previous oneyou haven't proved this>This pattern continues indefinitely,you haven't proved this>probability mass keeps getting pushed further and further out toward infinitygive the mathematical definition of this "probability mass" and what it means for it to be "pushed further into infinity"
>>16795774>you haven't proved thisCount them yourself: 1-9 (9 numbers), 10-99 (90 numbers), 100-999 (900 numbers). 90/9 = 10, 900/90 = 10.>you haven't proved thisIt's the definition of our number system. For any n-digit number, there are 9×10^(n-1) values. For base 10 atleast.>give the mathematical definitionStop pretending you don't understand basic math just to be contrarian.
>>16795776Wow, finally we are starting to see some actual numbers and generalized formulas>Stop pretending you don't understand basic math just to be contrarian."probability mass" doesn't exist. If you are referring to the probability mass function then you have to tell me what it means for it to be "pushed further into infinity", because it as of now it doesn't mean anything
>>16795668>Infinity is a concept, not a numberthis is no doubt one of the most damaging niggerbabling's that has ever befallen humanity, to think it arose purely to make laypeople get that inf ain't the et of reals, where they where being taught to do integration and differentiation with limits
>>16795624reminder infinites are physically impossible
>>16795846How do you know?
>>16795867because they cause contradictions >>16795733its not unsolved, mathematicians just refuse to admit they’re wrong
>>16795624>pick a random number from 1 to infinityHow?
>>16796232Do they always cauze contradictions?
>>16795624Infinity is not a number.
>>16795661>negative infinity>zeroIt's almost like math people are actually retarded.The penis goes in the vagina buddy.
Which infinity?
>>16795624You inspired me to write a pre-print for hitomic processes.I’ll put 4chan anonymous in the citations
ITT: We all ignore that AC is independent of ZF. Hilarity ensues.
>>16796241No.
>>16796341Then there could be infinities in the universe
>>16796351No, infinities are too big to fit inside. They exist as abstractions only. Ideas and stuff.
>>16795624did you pick it on a Tuesday?
>>16795624It's a 50% chance of being -infinity and a 50% chance of being positive infinity.
>>16795624Notice how no one has been able to refute this
>>16795624what is a so-called random number.
the real answer is that you can't randomly select items in an unbounded set
>>16796838why not? pic in OP proved you can
>>16796837This. You cannot generate a random number which is not dependent on initial state, which is fixed and thus not random. You cannot generate a random number on a computer that isn't dependant on a fixed initial state.
>>16797117>You cannot generate a random number
>>167956241) infinity isn't a number2) pretend it is; then pic rel is a heuristic for why the AVERAGE of n picks should tend to 0 as n gets larger, not that EVERY pick should be 0. In fact, you have a 0% chance of ever picking 0
>>16795624>the odds of getting a 2 digit number are 10x of getting a 1 digit number. And the odds of getting a 3 digit number are 10x of getting a 2 digit number.But every time you go up an order of magnitude, the number of possible choices also grows by an order of magnitude. You can't have a uniform random distribution over N because if the probability of picking a particular number is not zero, the probability of picking one of them becomes infinite. If it is 0, the probability of picking one of them is 0.
Why can't you just express the random number as a percentage of infinity? Maybe you won't know exactly which number is but you know that it's out there, somewhere.
>>16797197Every number is 0% of infinity
>>16795624Classical mathniggers are wrong about infinity. Infinity is a myth, much like Santa Claus or the third gender. It doesn't exist. Show me infinity in nature or calculate me infinity on a computer. Oh you can't because you always get a finite output? Then you can't do math with it. Faggot.
>>16797209>10 GOTO 10
>>16797212>power goes outFinite. Faggot.
>>16797214>deus ex machinaNice literary device. Faggot. Lol
>>16797216I don't even need to do anything. The average modern consumer grade PC lasts how long, a decade if you're lucky? You thiink your shitbox will still be looping in, say, a few centuries? Hell no. Your shitbox is bounded by reality, by physics, and they have only two rules on the matter: 1. You will never be a woman, 2. your loop will always be finite in the end.
>>16797223>if I hallucinate a novel around it, my novel has to endSo? Fuck your /lit/ bullshit
>>16797230Right, so you still can't demonstrate me a single infinity.>looped 10 timesFInite>looped 2 million timesFinite.>looped googolplex to the power of googolplex timesStill finite.I could write a novel about infinity, but it'd belong to the fantasy section.
>>16797233It doesn't stop looping, retard.
>ITT: tards fail to grasp the difference between realized and potential infinity
>>16797239Oh, did you do that? Sucks to be you.
>>16797236Show me a single loop that has run an infinite amount of times. Alternatively, demonstrate one that has never stopped looping and demonstrably never will.>>16797239>real infinity has never been tried!kys tankie
>>16797242If you're one of the two tards arguing above my post >>16797239 definitely applies to you.>n-n-no uBasically a concession.
@16797246This retard specifically seems to be confused about different levels of abstraction in general.
#16797252>*sniiiifffff* see I COULD add 1 to thish number and do thath an infinite amount of timesh and I could geth, uh, infinitely, infinitely *sniiiifff*>Then why don't you do that and show me?>gets mad
@16797259>confirms being deeply confused about different levels of abstractionBrown hands in action.
>>16797248I'm 10 GOTO 10. You're even more retarded than the retard I've been chatting with if you think 10 GOTO 10 isn't explicitly unrealized. Fucking retard. Lol
#16797261>hasn't been shoved into a locker enough times, clearly
>>16797262Your effort proves nothing to that other retard you're trying to argue with, for the obvious reason that you're not actually addressing anything he says.
>>16797261why are you niggers using # and @
%16797269>giving retards undue (You)s
>>16795624>If you pick a random number from 1 to infinity, the answer is infinityinfinity is not a number
>>16797252>>16797259>>16797261>>16797265>>16797275Why do all these Sanskrit Speaking Street Shitters suddenly think it's a flex to not use the normal reply syntax? This is an American English board; use it that way or fuck off back to your open air latrine in Bombay
16797269Because he foolishly believes my 4chanx fork tracks memearrows and not raw post numbers for mentions, just like he foolishly believes in the pie in the sky of infinity
>>16797280>preprogrammed biobot linguistic triggerYou pick a random member from the set of natural numbers. :^)
>>16797267Nope, addressed everything he said.>check out this literary fiction where something happens to the computer
>>16797285-20.7>"randomly" forgot the definition of natural numbers :^)
>>16797287>check out this literary fiction where a loop will run an infinite amount of times
>>16797287You addressed nothing he said. He's saying no actual process lasts forever, meanwhile you keep pointing at an abstract description of such a process and saying "nuh uh, what about this?"Both of you are mindless biobots prompting each other out of distribution.
>>16797246>Show me a single loop that has run an infinite amount of times>has run>infinteI'm already convinced you're a retard, you don't need to keep selling past the sale
>>16797293>no actual process lasts foreverWhy? Are you also gonna write me a novel about it? Dumb motherfuckers, both of you.
>>16797294So you agree that there is no infinity?>OHH but MAYBE IT COULD run an infinite amount of times!Has never happened, will never happen, can never happen.
>>16797298>Why?That would require infinite energy.
>>16797292What's stopping it?
>>16797302BUT BUT WHAT IF YOU HAD LE INFINITELY EFFICENT COMPUTER
>>16797306Power outage. Planned obsolescence. Flood. Nuclear war. Humanity dies and power plants melt down. Your mom cleans your room.
>>16797300Infinity means something doesn't end you fucking imbecile.>>16797302>more deus ex machina bullshitNice scifi novel.
>>16797309>>>/lit/
>>16797310>>more deus ex machina bullshit>Nice scifi novel.In the Current Year of Our Lord, a psychotic reply like this is a clear indication of LLM spam. Anyone who keeps replying to this poster after this post is either a LLM or a brown 70 IQ.
>>16797307>BUT BUT WHAT IF YOU HAD LE INFINITELY EFFICENT COMPUTERThen it would still gradually disintegrate due to thermodynamic laws, so you have to keep fixing it forever, which also requires infinite energy.
>>16797312>Indian gets rekt>seethes in meta post to muh lurkers about LLMs and swarthoidspottery
>>16797313BUT WHAT IF WE HAD AN INFINITELY RESISTANT COMPUTER THAT GENERATED INFINITE POWER FROM INFINITELY SMALL AMOUNTS OF ENERGY AND INFINITIED INFINITELY
>>16797316>BUT WHAT IF WE HAD AN INFINITELY RESISTANT COMPUTER THAT GENERATED INFINITE POWER FROM INFINITELY SMALL AMOUNTS OF ENERGY AND INFINITIED INFINITELYHow do you know I'm not posting from one?
>>16797317Because you can't check digits that are infinite.
>>16797320Wrong. When we reach infinite digits you can be sure I'll be the first to check 'em.
>>16797322Sure, I'll add it to my "things that'll never happen" reminder next to the Epstein list release.
>>16797320>>16797317>>16797316>>16797313>Let's write a story where we anthropomorphize a computer and pretend it's mathLol.
>>16797324They'll release the Epstein list and it will contain nothing except evidence against whoever kikes want to throw under this week's bus.
>>16797331>They'll release the Epstein list and it will contain nothing except evidence against whoever kikes want to throw under this week's bus.After infinity more weeks.
>>16797335>After infinity
>>16797335If infinity is conceptually invalid why do you keep invoking it?
>>16797339I'm convinced Allah doesn't exist either and I still know what the word signifies
>>16797344But you're invoking it because you believe it describes a situation.
>>16797348Correct, it describes a situation that cannot happen because infinity doesn't exist.
>>16797351>Correct, it describes a situation that cannot happenNo, you invoked it to describe the current situation.
>>16797353No, I invoked it to describe a situation that cannot happen.
>>16797357>can't keep track of what it saidLooks like I broke the second bot as well. Moving on. :^)
>>16797359But was it running on an infinitely infinity times infinity computer?
>>16797361>>16797359And just like that, the two dumbest niggers in the thread finally cancel each other out lol
>biobot still seething
>>16797373>Indian still can't into reply syntax
@everyoneHi guys, I heard Canada has laxed restrictions on euthanasia you should give it a try
>biobot STILL seethingMental illness.
>>16797390>Indian reply syntax>some shit about Canadapottery
>>16797393Poo in loo
>ITT there is a biobot losing its brown mind with rageNotice how this refers to no particular poster and yet some kind of brown biobot will think it's about it and get triggered.
>>16797410>Indian reply syntaxNotice the Indian reply syntax. Now watch the cognitive dissonance as the Indian tries to make it about a particular poster instead of a degenerate syntax that he intentionally brands himself with.
>saaar?>you are using wrong syntax, saaar>this is a syntax error!
>>16797418You'll fall asleep before I do. Monkey.
@16797425Saar, that is wrong syntax for referencing Mumbai.
>>16797429>Indian reply syntax
>>16797402explain exactly why the reply syntax is indian, I'll wait
>>16797476No True American is afraid to tag the post he's replying to. In 2005 that would have pegged you as a Scandinavian. In 2025 that pegs you as an Indian.
>True AmericanReminder the Americoon cloaca gentium includes every brown race that ever existed, including jeets.
>>16797531>Indian reply syntax
>>16796861Roll a dice(you don't know how many sides it has) can you tell the odds? nosame issue, but on a much larger scale
>>16796838>the real answer is that you can't randomly select items in an unbounded setYes, you can.>>16797646>Roll a dice>(you don't know how many sides it has)>can you tell the odds?That proves nothing about the general case of "randomly selecting items".
>>16797530Who is the recipient of @everyone?
>>16797685alt.tapeworm.chat.bombay
>>16797118That is epistemologic randomness?
>>16797708>That is epistemologic randomness?Proof of this delusional and baseless assertion?
>>16797710Well I don't know how it works (which is my argument) if I did, I would know how the initial state worksYou got me there, because I don't know how it works it's random, which is my argument
>>16797718>I don't know how it worksThen why are you making retarded assertions about it?
>>16797721Well apparently neither do you, otherwise you'd know the initial state and it would no longer be random, which as I said is epistemologic randomnessMuch love tho
>>16797726>Well apparently neither do you, otherwise you'd know the initial stateThis is quite literally schizophrenic babble, but I accept your concession that you just sharted out a meaningless token string when you claimed some nonsense about "epistemological randomness".
>>16797786Well then explain how the initial state is calculated?And if you know that you know the initial state and thus which value it produces
>>16797789>Well then explain how the initial state is calculated?What initial state? Why would you "calculate" it? What does it have to do with the properties of QM? Take your actual meds.
>>16797209what would you feel like, if you didn't have breakfast this morning anon?I know you did, I know you not having breakfast is a myth, like Santa Claus or the third genderbut try to imagine what you would feel like if you hadn't have had it
>>16797795Because if you know what produces the value you would have the value???But you can't explain it So you not knowing is the randomnessAnd if you did know, it would no longer be randomHow about you answer your own question to show your knowledge? I have already claimed I don't know and if I did, it wouldn't be random
>>16797801>Because if you know what produces the value you would have the value???Again, this is schizoabble. QM already accounts for "what produces the value" and it doesn't help your case any.
>>16797805If your state which produces the value is the total state of the whole Universe at a given time I will agree I don't know that
>>16797805>>16797820Pic rel
>>16797820The most I can make of your failed attempts to make a point, is that you think there's some metaphysical outer realm of absolute truth, in which the universe is embedded as an object that exists in a definite state (even with respect to particle physics models). So you say it's an "epistemological issue" because if you were a magical omniscient deity that exists in this outer realm, then you would see it's all secretly determined by this magical, secret fairy dust state. Unfortunately for you, this "epistemological" argument is based on ontological premises.
>>16797825But you obviously don't understand a single word of that. Why bother posting it?
>>16797826I'll give you that
>>16797831The only thing you're giving me is a good laugh at how retarded you are, posting random pages from a book you literally can't understand a word of.
>>16797834To know you're in the right I have to be in the wrong, so you can't get rid of me otherwise you wouldn't know where you stand.
>>16797836Saaar, the Buddha was white (Aryan), not a brown Indian.
>>16797839Have a nice night Anon
>>16797117My qualm with random is its an infinite regress. Random is always hiding somewhere else. If you take a dice, the reason it comes up random is because the dice is fairly constructed and the throw is random. But why is the throw random? Well, on a craps table they devised a routine which pushed it out of some statistically defined norm. But isn't this odd, to have a particular method that achieves random? This is almost anti-random by definition.It gets bad because it finally grounds itself in the circle jerk of chaos in the input -> output map. But the theory underlying the concept doesn't demonstrate itself, and is begging the question. The existence of the map is also not random to begin with. i would argue randomness doesn't even exist and we should be content with currently unpredictable.
>>16797862You have it all backwards. Almost everything exhibits a degree of randomness as a rule. Controlled human conditions are the exception. What you're pinpointing is the slight absurdity in trying to inject some randomness back into that, but in a controlled way.
>>16797873NTA but what do you mean by>Almost everything exhibits a degree of randomness as a ruleJust that you can't predict it?
>>16797879That humans single out isles of relative predictability (and it really is merely relative) within a system have no single, definite future overall. It's not just that you can't predict it in practice. You can't predict it in principle. The information you need doesn't exist looking from inside the universe.
>>16797884within a system that has no*
>>16795624>picks 37every fucking time
>>16797884Sure, but I think you may be conflating random with unpredictable. Like if you flip a coin as a human with a human thumb muscle and a human brain, it's unpredictable but maybe not random.
>>16797891"Randomness" is a name for whatever closes the gap between the multiple potential outcomes of a situation and the one actual outcome, when all the relevant factors are accounted for to the maximal degree allowed by your theory.
>>16797899I'm not sure I'd agree that variance is the same as randomness. Take a normal, transcendental number expressed in bits, random by definition. Then read it as a base three number. The unpredictability is still the same but there's never a 2 so it's less random by a third.
>>16795624Could someone explain rationally why this is wrong? I can't seem to figure it out.
I fucking hate all of you so much.
>>16795624>If you pick a random number from 1 to infinityYou can't. It's impossible.
>>16798034he's inferring random number as probability, and also trying to sieve that infinity is a number, even though it isn't.a random number between 0 to 999,999 is that any number between 0 to 999,999 has a 1/1,000,000 chance of appearing, reducing accuracy of correctly predicting what that number could be prior to the algorithm which picks a number.it does not sieve to group numbers, and it isn't supposed to. that there are 899 numbers between 100-999, or 8,999 numbers between 1,000 to 9,999, or 89,999 numbers between 10,000 to 99,999, or 899,999 numbers between 100,000 to 999,999; is not a meaningful affect for how a random number generator picks a number. any of the numbers here have a 1/1,000,000 chance of appearing. run 10,000,000 times, would be that each number 0-999,999 got picked about 10 times, and likely at least once. the numbers picked in 10-99 amount to 890 of the total picks, and the numbers 1000-9999 amount to 8900 total picks, because that is normal, because they are size distributions and not probability distributions.4chan is not generally an intelligent place.
Whatever random generator you use, it's going to run out of memory eventually>but THEORETICALLYShut the fuck up. Mathematicians are such tards sometimes.
>>16797911Quote the specific part of my post that says variance is the same as randomness.
>>16798034>>16798068OP isn't wrong. OP is actually 200 IQ. Just think about it: if the range you're picking from extends all the way to 100,000-digit numbers, what are the odds of you picking a single-digit number is pretty small, aren't they? Take the upper limit even higher and 2-digit, 3-digit, even 4-digit numbers become vanishingly unlikely. You can always make <x-digit numbers as unlikely as you want by extending the upper limit. But what if it's infinity? Infinity is infinitely bigger than anything. The odds of picking a number with finity-digits becomes 0 while infinity-digits becomes 1. :^)
>>16795624Formalize your distribution
>>16798117>finiteness is often described as continuous>infinite is often described as nothing greater, an end7 is a finite number. 8 is a finite number. "Count to 7" never implies to count beyond 7.1000 is a finite number."Count to 1000" has a capacity to accomplish timed checks between certain counts. One might question why they're counting, during the count. Someone who would gladly count to 1000 as gladly as they could have to 7, would be representing a strong minded quality, insofar they are counting something meaningful and not just "the numbers". To count to 7, what can that even mean? It would be, to count 7 things, and the time taken to acquire those 7 things. Or, to count frames of reference of time, to count 7 seconds, and there are many situations where counting seconds can be meaningless, but keeping a well trained mind to occasionally count seconds means to maintain the ability to count seconds, if and for when any more serious situation might arise where counting seconds is necessary.anyway, infinity is not a number. infinity is a programmatical direction hidden amongst the definite finiteness of reasons existential for math; and that direction is for continuous. Trying to "reach infinity" takes the context in a different further-beyond aspect, only if infinity is being treated as a number to reach, just as much 1000 is a number to reach, or perhaps 100 pushups is a number to reach.because the truest definition of OP's situation is 1/infinity probability that any number is selected between 1 to infinity, the actual answer is: no number is selected, because there has not been an established frame of reference for a number to have been chosen through. Infinity is that which encapsulates all the universe, not something a single person within the world encapsulates.I have infinity IQ.
>>16798807>gets filtered by a simple argument>has no counter>starts falseflagging incoherently
>>16798813you're a goddamned retard, my dude.if you treat infinity as a number, by pretending the infinity symbol is equivalent to a number symbol:>0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,∞and assume to "place" that ∞ on the number line, the number line extending from 0 to the right, somehow increasing in an animated continuous way to the right, then encompassing that line within a frame of reference so it's the numbers moving on the line, moving the left towards 0, as more greater and larger numbers must appear onto the line, then compared to ∞, ALL KNOWABLE FINITE NUMBERS are equivalent to 0, and if 0 is the one case scenario for the beginning of the number line, and ∞ is the one case scenario for the end of the number line, then 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999...% of the number line are numbers, and 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...1% of the number line is ∞, guaranteeing that ∞ will never be picked by a random number generator.depending on how you'd like to look at it, 99.999...% or 100%, guarantees that ∞ is never picked, or only a single case scenario will ever pick. literally one. only one. it will never appear more than once, no matter how many times the random picker algorithm is run.
>>16798831>if you treat infinity as a numberThis argument has got nothing to do with "treating infinity as a number" in principle. I just did it because it gets biobots like you utterly assblasted but it's easy to formulate the same point without it. I don't even know what your insane schizoramble is supposed to be about.
>>16798836I have infinity IQ.
>>16798837>he seethes because doesn't actually know why OP is wrong
If you pick a random integer between 0 and 10^x, the probability of it being greater than 10^y is (10^x-10^y-1)/(10^x). That approaches 1, for any fixed and finite y, as x approaches infinity. i.e. you will certainly have picked something greater than any finite y. :^)
>>16798873greater than 10^y for any finite y*
