|
| ▲ | hhjinks 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Your answer to that will depend on whether you think that is part of "all things possible." |
|
| ▲ | rablackburn 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Finally, a well-formed question to which the answer "42 (times)" is a possible solution. |
|
| ▲ | LPisGood 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Certainly! Probability 0 does not mean impossible. |
| |
| ▲ | voxl 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | In this case it does. Describe any effective measure to pick a random sample from the interval and you will have cheated into choosing from the computable reals instead (of which there is a countable amount) | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think that's correct. You're describing a limitation of our physical computing devices (or perhaps physical reality itself) as opposed to a theoretical flaw. At least as far as I can tell. | |
| ▲ | LPisGood 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Measure 0 is different than empty. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | adrianN 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| "Randomly" drawing anything from [0,1] is already quite difficult. |
| |
