1. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    21 Mar '07 04:351 edit
    Originally posted by adam warlock

    And saying that Z+ constitutes one half of Z' really isnt' saying much at all.
    Yes it is.

    I could win a lot of money from you in any number of wagers in which I rely on the information yielded by deducing that Z+ is half of Z', with you ignoring that same information.
  2. Joined
    06 Jul '06
    Moves
    2926
    21 Mar '07 04:52
    if infinity=x, then 1/2 of infinity would be x/2 so infinity is divisible i think.
  3. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    21 Mar '07 04:59
    Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
    if infinity=x, then 1/2 of infinity would be x/2 so infinity is divisible i think.
    Would you say you are a better Bible scholar or a better mathematician?
  4. Joined
    06 Jul '06
    Moves
    2926
    21 Mar '07 05:011 edit
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Would you say you are a better Bible scholar or a better mathematician?
    ive never read the bible, and im only in 10th grade which means i am still doing geometry which is very easy, so im not good at neither of them.
    edit: better at math though since i have done it before
  5. Standard memberadam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    Ceres
    Joined
    14 Oct '06
    Moves
    18375
    21 Mar '07 12:58
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Yes it is.

    I could win a lot of money from you in any number of wagers in which I rely on the information yielded by deducing that Z+ is half of Z', with you ignoring that same information.
    I don't get it... I can't understand if you're trying to be funny or you really think that way. Anyway i don't think that it is any good giving wrong information in the forums. Saying that you can halve sets with an infinite amount of members doesn't mean anything unless you're using halving in some other sense.
    Halving set A to set B could mean that set A has twice th number of members of set B. But if set A and B have infinite members that doesn't mean nothing. And in the example you gave they had the same cardinality. So in a sense we can say that they have the same number of members.
  6. Gangster Land
    Joined
    26 Mar '04
    Moves
    20772
    21 Mar '07 14:06
    Do two posts in a row which contain double negatives make a positive or an uber negative, or what?
  7. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    21 Mar '07 15:25
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    I don't get it... I can't understand if you're trying to be funny or you really think that way. Anyway i don't think that it is any good giving wrong information in the forums. Saying that you can halve sets with an infinite amount of members doesn't mean anything unless you're using halving in some other sense.
    Halving set A to set B could mean that ...[text shortened]... e cardinality. So in a sense we can say that they have the same number of members.
    Let us make the following wager.

    An infinitely long random integer will be generated, one random digit at a time. For each digit that is even, you pay me $3. For each that is odd, I pay you $1.

    What do you say?
  8. Standard memberadam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    Ceres
    Joined
    14 Oct '06
    Moves
    18375
    21 Mar '07 15:311 edit
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Let us make the following wager.

    An infinitely long random integer will be generated, one random digit at a time. For each digit that is even, you pay me $3. For each that is odd, I pay you $1.

    What do you say?
    I say that I don't see your point. What that has to do with cardinality?

    Edit: Or are you trying to make the point that even though the sets have the same cardinality you can make money out of it... My point in disagreeing with you was just to not see some wrong information posted on here. We can go and be all slick about it, but i think that it's more important to lay things down propperly.
  9. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    21 Mar '07 15:32
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    I say that I don't see your point. What that has to do with cardinality?
    Would you make the wager?
  10. Standard memberadam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    Ceres
    Joined
    14 Oct '06
    Moves
    18375
    21 Mar '07 15:34
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Would you make the wager?
    see my edit.
  11. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    21 Mar '07 15:404 edits
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    see my edit.
    Here's the proper response to my question:


    No, I would not accept the wager because I expect to lose $2 per digit. That is because I expect half of the digits to be even and half of the digits to be odd. The terms of the wager would have to be adjusted such that I would contribute at most half of the stake per digit before I would accept it. The fact that half of the integers are even is crucial to this analysis; were I to ignore that, I could not reject the wager on the above basis. Thus, it is not only correct but can be very meaningful to partition the integers into halves.


    Darvlay, ring the bell on this guy.
  12. Standard memberadam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    Ceres
    Joined
    14 Oct '06
    Moves
    18375
    21 Mar '07 15:431 edit
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Here's the proper response to my question:


    No, I would not accept the wager because I expect to lose $2 per digit. That is because I expect [b]half
    of the digits to be even and half of the digits to be odd. The terms of the wager would have to be adjusted such that I would contribute at most half of the stake per digit ...[text shortened]... is not only correct but can be very meaningful to partition the integers into halves.
    [/b]
    Of course i realized that. And that's why i asked you about the money winning thing. All I'm saying is that saying that half of the integers are even isn't a very good affirmation.
  13. Standard memberadam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    Ceres
    Joined
    14 Oct '06
    Moves
    18375
    21 Mar '07 15:45
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Darvlay, ring the bell on this guy.
    I don't think there will be any bell ringing. go see some serious book on set theory and then see if they use the word half when refering to attributes of sets with infinite members. and if you do see some book like that just send me the reference of it!
  14. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    21 Mar '07 15:56
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    I don't think there will be any bell ringing. go see some serious book on set theory and then see if they use the word half when refering to attributes of sets with infinite members. and if you do see some book like that just send me the reference of it!
    My arrogant friend, you have a long way to go on the road to attaining a level of mathematical accomplishment that entitles you to direct others' research.
  15. Standard memberChronicLeaky
    Don't Fear Me
    Reaping
    Joined
    28 Feb '07
    Moves
    655
    21 Mar '07 16:202 edits
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    I don't think there will be any bell ringing. go see some serious book on set theory and then see if they use the word half when refering to attributes of sets with infinite members. and if you do see some book like that just send me the reference of it!
    A serious book on set theory will say something like "The asymptotic density of the even integers in the set of integers is one half". I still don't like Dr S's use of the verb "halve" before, though, because when we halve a number, we get a unique result, while "halving" the integers by constructing some set with density 1/2 can be done in uncountably many distinct ways.

    To prove this last fact, note that there are uncountably many bounded integer sequences, because there is a bijection from the set of integer sequences in which all terms are between 0 and 9 and the real numbers between 0 and 1. Let {s(n)} be a bounded integer sequence. Then the sequence {2n + s(n)} has density 1/2 in the integers. There are thus uncountably many integer sequences of density 1/2 which differ in at least one term.

    This means that to say "halve the set Z" can refer to one of uncountably many operations, while the operation "halve the number x" refers to only one thing. I don't like this recycling of words, but I agree with everything else Dr S has said in this thread.

    I have decided to call people who use one word to mean two things "Al Gore linguists" in honour of Al Gore's claims of environmentalism.

    EDIT Come to think of it, people who say "halve x" where x is a numer are dinosaur linguists. Thus I support Dr S's use of the verb "halve" and reject the use of "halve" in the sense of "multiply by 1/2". The real Al Gore linguist is KellyJay, who began the thread by conflating of these two different concepts on the basis that the same word sometimes gets used for both.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree