News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Probability Theory for Scientists and Engineers by nicbou on Monday April 16, 2018 @08:15AM (#16848394)
> The set of all sets in a space, X, is called the power set, P(X). The power set is massive and, even if the space X is well-behaved, the corresponding power set can often contain some less mathematically savory elements. Consequently when dealing with sets we often want to consider a restriction of the power set that removes unwanted sets.

I wish people could teach math in plain English. I don't know why the math and physics world refuses to write for the reader. I took this class before, and I still don't know what the author means by "less mathematically savory elements".

Here's you explain things to humans:

> There is a set called the power set that contains all the sets in a space. This set is huge, and it contains [less mathematically savory elements]. This is why we usually use a restricted version that removes the unwanted sets.

Seriously, there's no point to this sort of fancy language. Math is already hard. No need to make it harder.

Re:Probability Theory for Scientists and Engineers by aje403 on Monday April 16, 2018 @09:44AM (#16848899)
"There is a set called the power set that contains all the sets in a space"

I don't think he's the best expositor and some of his terminology is crappy, but I understood the author from what I've read so far. I literally have no idea what you're trying to say; this has no meaning

Re:Probability Theory for Scientists and Engineers by nicbou on Wednesday April 18, 2018 @05:26AM (#16865903)
There is a set. It's called the power set. It contains all the sets in a space.
Re:Probability Theory for Scientists and Engineers by aje403 on Thursday April 19, 2018 @09:50AM (#16875858)
The terms space and set are not synonymous. A space is defined on a set.

The collection of all subsets of a set X is called the power set and is typically denoted as P(X).

Replacing something confusing but loosely understandable with something even more confusing isn't an improving anything

Re:Probability Theory for Scientists and Engineers by internetman55 on Monday April 16, 2018 @08:20AM (#16848413)
Well your second statement isn't even logically equivalent to the first for one
Re:Probability Theory for Scientists and Engineers by nicbou on Wednesday April 18, 2018 @05:26AM (#16865900)
It's based on my comprehension of his paragraph