Apr
21
comment If there are obvious things, why should we prove them?
There are also things which are "obviously" true, and yet provably false: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
Apr
9
comment Which number is larger and Why? 1.7 or 1.73205
@ChrisH: I would stick with unspecified/unknown/close. I would consider claiming they're "equal" incorrect, because that implies an accuracy that isn't there.
Apr
7
comment Are mathematical articles on Wikipedia reliable?
@user140943: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia, and less ironically, news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html and pcworld.com/article/251796/…
Apr
3
comment Can a coin with an unknown bias be treated as fair?
Instead of asking if a possibly weighted sd-card can be used as a one-time fair coin, you should ask if you have a 50% chance of successfully guessing which side is the heavy side? They're almost the same question.
Feb
14
comment Very probable event occuring at least once during $n$ trials
which is 0.999... (with five hundred 9's total)
Jun
26
awarded  Popular Question
Aug
23
comment Using a weighted table?
So, you want to pick a random "payment" where the relative probabilities are given by "weight"? If that's not what you meant, please edit the question to clarify
Aug
14
comment Is addition more fundamental than subtraction?
Here's teh start of a bunch of C++ programmers discussing the question: chat.stackoverflow.com/transcript/message/4935773#4935773, where I held that I believe that the axioms of math are simpler if subtraction is defined in terms of addition, but I'm not a math guy, so we brought it here.
Apr
12
comment Improving my understanding of Cantor's Diagonal Argument
After studying all these answers for over an hour until well after my head hurt, I realized that I was defining f(n) with a particular n as matching the definition, instead of attempting to find the n that matched that definition. By forcing a particular f(n) to have the value of s_f I ran into the element defined in terms of itself issue. So the whole thought was stupid from the get-go.
Apr
12
comment Improving my understanding of Cantor's Diagonal Argument
@BenedictEastaugh: Sorry for my poor wording, but that's part of the problem. Aurturo's (And Cantor's) definitions of $s_f$ appear to depend on $s_f$ not having an index. And then use that to prove that $s_f$ has no index.
Apr
12
awarded  Critic
Apr
12
awarded  Cleanup
Apr
12
revised Improving my understanding of Cantor's Diagonal Argument
rolled back to a previous revision
Apr
12
revised Improving my understanding of Cantor's Diagonal Argument
added 34 characters in body
Apr
12
comment Improving my understanding of Cantor's Diagonal Argument
That was why I put integers in quotes, because I didn't know the right term. Sorry for the confusion. I shouldn't have put the natural numbers in quotes, I shouldn't have done that.
Apr
12
revised Improving my understanding of Cantor's Diagonal Argument
added 34 characters in body
Apr
12
comment Improving my understanding of Cantor's Diagonal Argument
This is very well written, and along with Rahul Narain's link, says that "integers" that are infinitely repeating are not "natural numbers", which was definitely the flaw in that part of my reasoning. I guess that means I don't have the right definition of "natural numbers", but even so, that solves that issue.
Apr
12
revised Improving my understanding of Cantor's Diagonal Argument
deleted 15 characters in body
Apr
12
awarded  Commentator
Apr
12
comment Improving my understanding of Cantor's Diagonal Argument
@ArturoMagidin: Thanks for clarifying the wording. I'll edit my question to (hopefully) get more of the vocab correct. Being a programmer, I'm much more used to thinking of everything as "functions" and "sets".