Continuation of >>14142363
>>14159171
>>REEEE it doesn't make sense when you repeat what I said!!!
Yeah, it doesn't make sense because only you made a jump from A to B that doesn't follow. Me saying that B doesn't follow from A is not an equivalent form of argument. You fail at basic logic.
>You quote a wiki article that justifies a theorem based entirely off the last wiki article you quoted that I demonstrated is wrong
The only thing you demonstrated to be wrong is your understanding of basic calculus and probability theory.
>it mindlessly treats 1/infinity as zero.
It doesn't. You don't understand what a limit is.
>It's a method for saying a trend approaches zero. It never makes the assertion, EVER, that the trend actually does reach zero.
What trend? The trend of a finite operation? You don't understand what a limit is.
>Limit of x to infinity in the function f(x)=1/x is zero, but f(x)=0 never touches the x axis.
Right, so why are you confusing one with the other? The function is not describing the probability over an infinite sample space, the limit is.
>Your wiki "Almost surely" article's justification that the probability was 0 that the coin would land heads infinitely literally said "letting n ? {\displaystyle n\rightarrow \infty } n\rightarrow \infty yields 0"
And?
>you are contradicting the wiki
How?
>You have not given a source that says 1/infinity is zero
Why would I? I never argued that. Another non sequitur.
>It is what he said
Nope, you just misrepresented it, which is apparently all you can do.
Just don't post if you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>14159171
>>REEEE it doesn't make sense when you repeat what I said!!!
Yeah, it doesn't make sense because only you made a jump from A to B that doesn't follow. Me saying that B doesn't follow from A is not an equivalent form of argument. You fail at basic logic.
>You quote a wiki article that justifies a theorem based entirely off the last wiki article you quoted that I demonstrated is wrong
The only thing you demonstrated to be wrong is your understanding of basic calculus and probability theory.
>it mindlessly treats 1/infinity as zero.
It doesn't. You don't understand what a limit is.
>It's a method for saying a trend approaches zero. It never makes the assertion, EVER, that the trend actually does reach zero.
What trend? The trend of a finite operation? You don't understand what a limit is.
>Limit of x to infinity in the function f(x)=1/x is zero, but f(x)=0 never touches the x axis.
Right, so why are you confusing one with the other? The function is not describing the probability over an infinite sample space, the limit is.
>Your wiki "Almost surely" article's justification that the probability was 0 that the coin would land heads infinitely literally said "letting n ? {\displaystyle n\rightarrow \infty } n\rightarrow \infty yields 0"
And?
>you are contradicting the wiki
How?
>You have not given a source that says 1/infinity is zero
Why would I? I never argued that. Another non sequitur.
>It is what he said
Nope, you just misrepresented it, which is apparently all you can do.
Just don't post if you have no idea what you're talking about.
