Continuity Property for Non-increasing Sets (Probability)

rbzima
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
So, I know the proof for a non-decreasing set using the continuity property, and I'm wondering if I have to use the intersection of all pairwise disjoint sets rather than the union, as seen in the non-decreasing proof. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It might help if you said what you were trying to prove
 
Ahhh, good call my brother! Forgot!

Probability of the limit as n approaches infinity of E_{n} equals the limit as n approaches infinity of the probability of E_{n}
 
The intersection of disjoint sets is empty! All you need is 2 sets to get the result - Prob(empty set)=0.
 
Does anyone have any idea what this would look like in a Venn Diagram? I personally was thinking that I might be able to prove this using disjoint sets with unions, and complementary probabilities. I'm not 100% sure of that though at this point.
 
Nevermind everone! I just realized that I can still use disjoint sets and complementary probabilities of unions. Thanks for the different opinions though!
 
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.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
532
Replies
19
Views
2K
Back
Top