- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Alastair Malcolm <amalcolm.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 15:17:22 -0000

[I think the principle of the following comment also applies to your other

post.]

It is the x-coordinate that determines the state, in our analogy. Are you

really saying that randomly shooting arrows into *any* finite segment (and

therefore *all* finite segments) of your infinite tape will yield

x-coordinates something like (rounded to one dec. place): -0.9, 3.1,

8.7, -0.1, -0.4, 1.8, -0.5, 3.0, ...? That does not seem very random to me.

And what if I had wished to compare the chance of 'hitting' the first three

states (-1 to 2.999...) with the last eight (3 to 9.999...)? Would that

still be an equal chance of either? If so, that would require a different

'random' sequence - but they should be the same hits!

----- Original Message -----

From: H J Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>

To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>

Sent: 23 February 2002 03:05

Subject: Re: Draft Philosophy Paper

*> Dear Alastair:
*

*>
*

*> I think you still fail to see my point. So here I try to draw a picture.
*

*>
*

*> Original single venue system [V(0)]:
*

*>
*

*> V(0) x -------------- -1 ----- 0
*

*> -------------------------------------- + 10 ----
*

*>
*

*> Take a random sample into the line.
*

*> The target size between x = -1 to x = 0 is clearly not equal to the target
*

*> size between x = 0 to x = +10 therefore so to the resulting sample.
*

*>
*

*> My infinite venues system [V(0) to V(infinity)]
*

*>
*

*> y
*

*>
*

*> V(infinity) x -------------- -1 ----- 0
*

*> -------------------------------------- + 10 ----
*

*> .
*

*> .
*

*> .
*

*> V(2) x -------------- -1 ----- 0
*

*> -------------------------------------- + 10 ----
*

*> V(1) x -------------- -1 ----- 0
*

*> -------------------------------------- + 10 ----
*

*> V(0) x -------------- -1 ----- 0
*

*> -------------------------------------- + 10 ----
*

*>
*

*> Here, to be a random sample over the complete Everything - all venues -
*

the

*> sample is taken into the structure like shooting an arrow at random into
*

an

*> infinite piece of tape perpendicular to the surface of the tape over the
*

*> whole tape strip bounded by -1 to + 10 on x and by y = 0 to y = infinity
*

on

*> y. The entire surface of the tape will have a uniform hit density - equal
*

*> hits per square. Since the target area between x = -1 and x = 0 is now
*

the

*> same as the target area from x = 0 to x = +10 that is both have an
*

infinite

*> area - or the same number of squares - they will take the same number of
*

*> hits and there will be no sign bias in the resulting sample. Any
*

*> lengthwise parsing of the tape is not relevant.
*

Received on Sat Feb 23 2002 - 07:26:36 PST

Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 15:17:22 -0000

[I think the principle of the following comment also applies to your other

post.]

It is the x-coordinate that determines the state, in our analogy. Are you

really saying that randomly shooting arrows into *any* finite segment (and

therefore *all* finite segments) of your infinite tape will yield

x-coordinates something like (rounded to one dec. place): -0.9, 3.1,

8.7, -0.1, -0.4, 1.8, -0.5, 3.0, ...? That does not seem very random to me.

And what if I had wished to compare the chance of 'hitting' the first three

states (-1 to 2.999...) with the last eight (3 to 9.999...)? Would that

still be an equal chance of either? If so, that would require a different

'random' sequence - but they should be the same hits!

----- Original Message -----

From: H J Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>

To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>

Sent: 23 February 2002 03:05

Subject: Re: Draft Philosophy Paper

the

an

on

the

infinite

Received on Sat Feb 23 2002 - 07:26:36 PST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST
*