News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Are real numbers really real? by function_seven on Tuesday June 12, 2018 @10:50AM (#17293749)
“Almost every” is a term of art in mathematics. It means basically “100% wherever you look, but not really 100%”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_everywhere

Re:Are real numbers really real? by gweinberg on Tuesday June 12, 2018 @11:57AM (#17294527)
Isn't it the opposite, more like 100% everywhere you don't look, and nowhere you do? I think the really real numbers are the countable subset of them which are in some way expressible, and the uncountable subset which are in no way expressible except in vague generalities like "they're not shaved by the barber" are in a sense less real.
Re:Are real numbers really real? by function_seven on Tuesday June 12, 2018 @12:17PM (#17294764)
I like your definition of "look".

I was going with where a dart* would land (100% of the time it will "really" hit a point that can't be expressed using computable numbers), but you're using it to mean anything we can compute or express. That is, if we're looking somewhere, it has to be somewhere we can say that we're looking, and therefore expressible. If we take your meaning, then yeah, that's what I mean as well :)

* (Yes, the dart is an abstract one. No comments about the Planck length, please)

Re:Are real numbers really real? by unkulunkulu on Tuesday June 12, 2018 @12:37PM (#17294985)
The example with the dart plays into the «random numbers» notion, i.e. you have to use some kind of random process to get hold (non-constructively) of such a number.
Re:Are real numbers really real? by meuk on Tuesday June 12, 2018 @11:27AM (#17294182)
Expressed as a percentage, it would be 100%, though ;)
Re:Are real numbers really real? by function_seven on Tuesday June 12, 2018 @11:29AM (#17294201)
Well, almost...
Re:Are real numbers really real? by filmor on Tuesday June 12, 2018 @04:50PM (#17297844)
Nope, exactly. The measure of the interval [0, 1] excluding any countable subset (for example all rational numbers) is still exactly 1, that's usually what mathematicians mean by "almost every", here "almost every real number in [0, 1] is irrational" :)
Re:Are real numbers really real? by function_seven on Tuesday June 12, 2018 @06:07PM (#17298520)
I was joking, but to a point.

The problem is that "100%" =/= "All". But most of the time, it is considered to be equivalent. The "almost all" phrase is used instead of "100%" precisely because dividing by infinity doesn't yield a useful result in some contexts.

In more... "conventional" cases, if I tell you that 100% of the items are blue, you can conclude that none of them are red. With the intermingling of countable and uncountable sets, this statement fails. You have a situation where 100% of the items in the superset are blue, and there are also some red ones.

So it's "almost 100%" in the same way it's "almost all". I'm using the word "almost" to mean "infinitesimally close to"

Re:Are real numbers really real? by resource0x on Tuesday June 12, 2018 @11:35AM (#17294257)
Really, exactly 100%.
Re:Are real numbers really real? by function_seven on Tuesday June 12, 2018 @11:37AM (#17294285)
Yeah. But “100%”, and “all” or “every”, are considered synonyms most of the time. Not in this case though.