An expression for a sequence of events

hholzer
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
if you have a sequence of events {A_1, A_2, ...} then an expression
for the event that "infinitely many A_i's occur" is:

U(n = 1 to inf, U(m = n to inf, A_m) )

but wouldn't

U(n = 1 to inf, A_n)

also satisfy this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hholzer said:
if you have a sequence of events {A_1, A_2, ...} then an expression
for the event that "infinitely many A_i's occur" is:

U(n = 1 to inf, U(m = n to inf, A_m) )

but wouldn't

U(n = 1 to inf, A_n)

also satisfy this?
I believe the original expression, as stated, is incorrect. It should be the intersection of unions, not the union of unions.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top