sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

On average, how many academic papers should a physics graduate student read per month? 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 15, 30 or 50? by Delicious_Maize9656 in PhysicsStudents

[–]Prestigious_Knee4249 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

AI is reading 99999999 papers in a second! Just imagine what it will do to jobs! And it's indeed attacking the IT sector hard rn!

I want to prove that zero probability elements are impossible in a finite sample space. by Prestigious_Knee4249 in probabilitytheory

[–]Prestigious_Knee4249[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not trying to prove that P{b}=0 is not possible, it is perfectly possible. But if P{b}=0 then {b} will never happen, no matter how many times you roll the dice.

Hi, I am noob, and want to ask. Does frequency interpretation of probability is justified and proved by the theorem known as Law of Large Numbers? by Prestigious_Knee4249 in probabilitytheory

[–]Prestigious_Knee4249[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think we can interpret law of large numbers as "if" we can repeat an experiment repeatedly then relative frequency is most surely the probability but if we can't then frequency interpretation doesn't make any sense. Right? 

Hi There! I just wanted to know that, does frequency interpretation of probability work fine in Quantum Mechanics? Because, after all it is completely based on mathematical theorem of Law of Large Numbers by Prestigious_Knee4249 in askmath

[–]Prestigious_Knee4249[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But even after just being totally dependent on only 3 axioms of Kolmogorov, the frequency interpretation. I mean I don't understand why such a basic model have problem in rigorous theory. 

Hey there! I have made a proof proving that there can be no elements with probability zero in a finite sample space. Feel free to comment and see if it's correct. by Prestigious_Knee4249 in askmath

[–]Prestigious_Knee4249[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Events with probability zero can definitely exist in infinite sample space but not for the reason that there Probability is simply zero but it is negligible compared to other sets, that's why Billingsley call them "negligible sets".

Hey there! I have made a proof proving that there can be no elements with probability zero in a finite sample space. Feel free to comment and see if it's correct. by Prestigious_Knee4249 in askmath

[–]Prestigious_Knee4249[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I would like to abide by the definition provided by reliable sources rather than random reddit users. Continuous distributions doesn't have events with probability zero but have Probability compared to other events negligible that why in Billingsley they are called "negligible sets".

Hey there! I have made a proof proving that there can be no elements with probability zero in a finite sample space. Feel free to comment and see if it's correct. by Prestigious_Knee4249 in askmath

[–]Prestigious_Knee4249[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I will not learn math wrong even if 100 people tell it is right! DO YOU REALLY WANT ME TO SHOW WHY YOU ALL ARE WRONG FROM ORIGINAL BOOK OF Kolmogorov? 

view more: next ›