Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Every number we know makes up exactly 0% of numbers

  1. Oct 5, 2007 #1
    Not sure if this is the correct forum, but here is a very simple concept I realized about numbers.

    Let's take an example number to be 1,564,003

    Now let's say the variable "x" represents the quantity of numbers in our number system... so the amount of numbers.

    To make it simple, consider only positive integers.

    The equation

    (x - 1564003) / x

    gives the percent of numbers that are NOT 1564003.


    Since there are an infinite amount of numbers...

    lim x-->infinity (x - 1564003) / x

    lim x-->infinity = 1

    So 100% of numbers are greater than 1564003.

    To me, this answer seems a little strange.

    Of course, there are numbers that are less than 1564003, for example... 1564002 or 23 or 792.

    But to say that there are numbers less than 1564003 is like saying 0.999~ DOES NOT equal 1, when it certainly does!



    Edit:

    Now what is really strange to me is that this applies to every number ever used and every number that will ever be used. So all the numbers from 1 to 99999^99999999999 are 0% of numbers.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 5, 2007 #2
  4. Oct 5, 2007 #3
    well if it says 100% of numbers are > 1564003 you could also do that 100% of all numbers are < 1564003.

    But I think what you're trying to say is that if you have a set of all numbers real/complex/etc... which has infinite numbers in it. you remove a finite amount of numbers you still have an infinite ammount of numbers in that set.

    So even if you take every number from 1-99999^99999999 out of that set you haven't decreased the amount of element's in the set.

    You could also think about every number between [0,1]. if you remove every number from [0,.5] there's still an infinite amount of numbers you could find between [0.5,1].
     
  5. Oct 5, 2007 #4

    mathwonk

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    2015 Award

    some of us know a lot of numbers. i myself am personal friends with (well almost) all numbers between 40 and 41.
     
  6. Oct 6, 2007 #5

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Sure you could apply the same idea. But by assumption, we know all 1564003 numbers that are less than 1564003 -- so the end result is that we are missing 0% of the numbers.
     
  7. Oct 6, 2007 #6

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    "Of course, there are numbers that are less than 1564003, for example... 1564002 or 23 or 792.

    But to say that there are numbers less than 1564003 is like saying 0.999~ DOES NOT equal 1, when it certainly does!"

    Not at all!

    In the latter case, we show that the DIFFERENCE between 0.999... and 1 is zero, and hence, that they are representations of the same number.

    In the earlier case, you show that the RATIO between the number of positive integers below some specified one and the "number" of positive integers as such is zero.

    Difference and ratio is not the same thing.

    For any finite x, we can say roughly speaking, [tex]\frac{x}{\infty}=0[/tex]
    But that relationship does NOT imply that x is equal to 0!
     
  8. Oct 6, 2007 #7

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    It is also relevant to this topic that, in continuous probability distributions, a probability of 0 does NOT mean "impossible" and a probability of 1 does NOT mean "certain".
     
  9. Oct 6, 2007 #8

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    To wit, mathematicians have adopted the phrase "almost never" and "almost certain" as the appropriate technical term for these cases.

    (i.e. a probability of 99.99999999% is not almost certain, but a probability of 100% is)
     
  10. Oct 6, 2007 #9

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I'll have to keep that in mind when I play the lottery!
     
  11. Oct 6, 2007 #10

    Chris Hillman

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    See my thread on the Cramer-Euler-McLaurin paradox for an instance where "almost every" comes up in a geometric setting (look for my suggestion that readers compare the notion of "an r-tuple of points which stand in general position wrt each other" with the notion of "choosing r points at random"; my challenge was essentially this: "does it make sense to say that almost every r-tuple is in general position"?).
     
  12. Nov 14, 2007 #11
    It is most certainly not zero...

    It IS incredibly and (for an infinite x) incalculably small.

    So I believe the correct description is that for any given number and all numbers less than that number and greater zero compared to infinity, ie: 0 < n < infinity the percentage is finite, but small.

    Note: I made the equation 0 < n < infinity on purpose. If as the original post implies that we choose and N and all numbers less than N without a lower limit like zero or some other point we include all numbers below N including those that approach negative infinity. At which point the percentage of numbers would still not be zero, but 50% plus some finite, but small increment. :)
     
  13. Nov 14, 2007 #12

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    For a given natural number N, the asymptotic proportion of natural numbers that are less than N most certainly is zero.
     
  14. Nov 16, 2007 #13
    I recommend "The Strange Logic of Random Graphs" by Joel Spencer. Using logic to prove things like "Almost all graphs contain a triangle" and (the punchline) "if P is a property which can be expressed in first order quantifier logic, then almost all graphs are P or almost no graphs are P".
     
  15. Nov 16, 2007 #14

    Then you didn't use enough decimal places. A rounding error to zero isn't the same thing as zero. It's just "close enough that it makes no practical difference". A position which I would certainly uphold, but not to be confused with "is actually the value". Besides as I pointed out, the original post didn't specify natural numbers. Could be integers, could be reals or something other than naturals any of which would produce a result of 50%.
     
  16. Nov 16, 2007 #15

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I mean what I said. The question is "what proprtion of the entire set of natural numbers is less than 1,564,003?", not "what proportion of a very large, but finite, sets of natural numbers is less than 1,564,003?". Are you sure you know precisely what that means? It is not a trivial matter to generalize the notion of "proportion" to the infinite.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2007
  17. Nov 16, 2007 #16
    Yup. Know what proportional means. Even Googled it just to be sure...lol

    Reread the original post, and sure enough it is about natural numbers, so the number is close to zero.

    As you pointed out, the asymtotic curve approaches zero as the number approaches infinity. No question. But there is an enormous difference between "approaches zero" and "is zero". Now, that being said I certainly know that for all intents and purposes there is no engineering reason to make the distinction at some arbitrary number of significant digits, but the difference is not semantic, nor philisophical, but one of precision. Let me clarify. By definition the asymptotic curve never cuts the axis, in this case infinity. The puzzle is like a mathematicians version of Zeno's Paradox.

    Just out of curiosity you said it is not a trivial matter to generalize the notion of "proportion to the infinite", and yet that is precisely what happens when you extrapolate an asymtotic curve to the point it, by definition, can never reach. I suspect that means that you were just using the wrong equation.

    Put it this way, can you give me an equation that shows that some arbitrarily large non-zero number that is not infinity, divided by some other arbitrarily smaller non-zero number equals zero instead of "approaches zero"?
     
  18. Nov 16, 2007 #17

    CRGreathouse

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    But we *are* talking about an infinite number.
     
  19. Nov 17, 2007 #18

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes. Similarly, there is an enormous difference between "a sequence" and "the limit of a sequence" -- this difference is the one you seem to be missing. The usual measure of proportion is defined to be

    [tex]m(S) := \lim_{n \rightarrow +\infty} \frac{\# (S \cap \mathbb{N}_n)}{n}[/tex]

    where [itex]\mathbb{N}_n[/itex] is the set of natural numbers less than n. And even when the individual terms are all positive, that does not imply the limit is positive.
     
  20. Nov 17, 2007 #19

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I assume you meant "larger" not "smaller"?

    Anyways, such a quotient cannot be zero.

    More importantly, it doesn't even make sense to ask if it "approaches zero" -- the ratio of two numbers is merely a number.
     
  21. Nov 17, 2007 #20
    In some cases in Number Theory the term density is used. Thus while the multiples of 7 are infinite, their density is 1/7. Of course, in the case under discussion, the density is 0.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?