X



トップページ数学
1002コメント821KB

現代数学の系譜 カントル 超限集合論2

■ このスレッドは過去ログ倉庫に格納されています
0001現代数学の系譜 雑談 ◆e.a0E5TtKE
垢版 |
2019/12/20(金) 23:28:06.21ID:ZaXFXilg
前スレ
現代数学の系譜 カントル 超限集合論
https://rio2016.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/math/1570237031/

関連スレ
1)現代数学はインチキのデパート
https://rio2016.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/math/1570145810/28-
直接には、ここの28からの続き

2) 1)の前スレ
現代数学はインチキだらけ
https://rio2016.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/math/1567930973/1-

3) 2)の中の正則性公理に関する議論の前のスレ(^^
現代数学の系譜 工学物理雑談 古典ガロア理論も読む77
https://rio2016.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/math/1568026331/1-
0586現代数学の系譜 雑談 古典ガロア理論も読む ◆e.a0E5TtKE
垢版 |
2020/03/22(日) 09:53:17.78ID:TMbOZsnt
>>582
おサル、それ誤読だよ
”misunderstanding”は、下記引用の3)のとこでしょ
でも、面白いね、文献の”philosophical reason”の「 independently」の
”orthodox (Kolmogorovian) probability theory”と異なる見方(哲学だけれど)

>>553より参考)
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/151286/probabilities-in-a-riddle-involving-axiom-of-choice
Probabilities in a riddle involving axiom of choice Denis氏 Dec 9 '13
DR Pruss氏
(抜粋)
show 6 more comments
1)Our choice of index i is made randomly, but for this we only need the uniform distribution on {0,…,n}. It is made independently of the opponent's choice. ? Denis Dec 17 '13 at 15:21
2)I was assuming that "independently" has the meaning it does in probability theory (P(AB)=P(A)P(B) and generalizations for σ-fields). But that does require a probabilistic description of the opponent's choice.
Of course, one could mean "independently" here in some non-mathematical causal sense. (And there may be philosophical reason for doing this: fitelson.org/doi.pdf )
Still, mixing the probabilistic with nonprobabilistic concepts might lead to some difficulties, though. ? Alexander Pruss Dec 18 '13 at 15:21
3)ah ok I see where the misunderstanding comes from, it's true that "independently" is ambiguous, because only one random variable is involved here.
But I think it still has a mathematical meaning in the sense "it does not depend on the opponent's choice", namely we have ∃x∀y where x is our strategy and y is our opponent's strategy (i.e. the sequence),
and we still win this game because we can choose devise a (probabilistic) strategy that works on all sequences. ? Denis Dec 19 '13 at 11:54

つづく
0587現代数学の系譜 雑談 古典ガロア理論も読む ◆e.a0E5TtKE
垢版 |
2020/03/22(日) 09:53:44.14ID:TMbOZsnt
>>586
つづき

4)What we have then is this: For each fixed opponent strategy, if i is chosen uniformly independently of that strategy (where the "independently" here isn't in the probabilistic sense), we win with probability at least (n?1)/n.
That's right. But now the question is whether we can translate this to a statement without the conditional "For each fixed opponent strategy". ? Alexander Pruss Dec 19 '13 at 15:05
5)How about describing the riddle as this game, where we have to first explicit our strategy, then an opponent can choose any sequence. then it is obvious than our strategy cannot depend on the sequence. The riddle is "find how to win this game with proba (n-1)/n, for any n." ? Denis Dec 19 '13 at 19:43
6)But the opponent can win by foreseeing what which value of i we're going to choose and which choice of representatives we'll make. I suppose we would ban foresight of i? ? Alexander Pruss Dec 19 '13 at 21:25
7)yes the order would be: 1)describe the probabilistic strategy 2)opponent choses a sequence 3)probabilistic variable i is instanciated ? Denis Dec 19 '13 at 23:02

(引用終り)
■ このスレッドは過去ログ倉庫に格納されています

ニューススポーツなんでも実況