| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ASK A QUESTION RECENT RESPONSES CONCEPT CLOUD
|
In the probability thread, multiple philosophers mention examples of zero-probability events that aren't necessarily "impossible" (like flipping an infinite number of heads in a row). Arriving at a probability of zero in these instances relies on saying that 1/infinity = 0. But this math seems misleading. Don't mathematicians rely on more precise language to avoid this paradoxical result, by saying that "the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity = 0," rather than simply "1/x = 0"? I feel like there must be some way to distinguish (supposedly) zero-probability events that are actually possible and zero-probability events that are impossible. Thanks! June 25, 2009
|
RELATED SITES
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Now, consider some infinite HT-sequence s. For any positive integer n, we can consider the set of all sequences that agree with s for the first n terms. This set contains s, and imitating the reasoning in the last paragraph we see that it represents the event that the first n coin flips come out as specified by s, which has probability 1/2n. Since {s} is a subset of every one of these sets, the event that the entire infinite sequence is exactly s must have probability less than 1/2n for every n. But that means that the event must have probability 0. So you are absolutely right that the reasoning here involves a limiting process: the probability is 0 because 1/2n approaches 0 as n approaches infinity.
With this background, it is also now easy to see the distinction between zero-probability events that are possible and those that are impossible. The event that the entire infinite sequence is s is represented by the set {s}. It has probability 0, but is possible. The event that the first flip is both a heads and also a tails is represented by the empty set (since there are no elements of the sample space that fit this description); it has probability 0 and is impossible.