- #1

Loren Booda

- 3,119

- 4

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Loren Booda
- Start date

- #1

Loren Booda

- 3,119

- 4

- #2

Loren Booda

- 3,119

- 4

Can you imagine this situation?

- #3

bogdan

- 191

- 0

What if f(x)=k/r(x) ? Huh ?

Maybe you wanted to say f(r(x))...or I just don't understand...

Maybe you wanted to say f(r(x))...or I just don't understand...

- #4

plus

- 178

- 1

Originally posted by Loren Booda

Can you imagine this situation?

Also, may this be a great way (in theory) to obtain 0's of f(x)?

Does it always maintain the properties of the random function r(x). For example you might have specified that if the domain is the real numbers, the function r(x) returns values in the interval [0, 1], multiplying this by 2 does not preserve this property.

Do you need to make your definition of randomness more tight, or am I missing something.

As to Bogdan's point, f(x)=k/r(x) will be a random function...and thus not allowed by the Loren Booda's initial statement.

Last edited:

- #5

bogdan

- 191

- 0

So e = f(x)...hmmm... r(x)*f(x)=r(x)...hmmm...still don't get it...

- #6

plus

- 178

- 1

Originally posted by bogdan

What if f(x)=k/r(x) ? Huh ?

Maybe you wanted to say f(r(x))...or I just don't understand...

Certainly he does not mean f(r(x)) as you could just set f(x) = 1 for all x.

What he appears to be saying that there if r contains no information, i.e. it returns a value on the range with equal probability, then multiplying it by any conventional (not including random) and not equal to zero at x ,function returns a result which contains no information as defined above.

Perhaps his statement is more general?

- #7

bogdan

- 191

- 0

I don't know for sure...maybe he'll explain better...

- #8

Loren Booda

- 3,119

- 4

What is returned is the property of randomness, apparently not the function itself as first defined. Indeed I need to "loosen" my definition of random r(x). Perhaps I should require its returned interval to be [-[oo],[oo]]. Thanks for your feedback.Does it always maintain the properties of the random function r(x). For example you

might have specified that if the domain is the real numbers, the function r(x)

returns values in the interval [0, 1], multiplying this by 2 does not preserve this

property.

Do you need to make your definition of randomness more tight, or am I missing

something.

I hope this helps your understanding of the problem also, bogdan?

- #9

bogdan

- 191

- 0

Yeap...if (non-)random means not random... ...those brackets...

- #10

Loren Booda

- 3,119

- 4

bogdan-

A random number times a random number, or times a non-random number, is a random number.

A random number times a random number, or times a non-random number, is a random number.

- #11

bogdan

- 191

- 0

But why ?

if f(x)=1/r(x), then both are random...

Or am I just stupid ? Or worse ?

if f(x)=1/r(x), then both are random...

Or am I just stupid ? Or worse ?

- #12

plus

- 178

- 1

What is the probability distribution of your random function on the real line going to look like?

- #13

Loren Booda

- 3,119

- 4

bogdan, I appreciate your interest too. Think of a random function with magnitude r(x) returning values from 0 to [oo], multiply each by a nonzero arbitrary number f(x), and one returns the random function along x.

- #14

plus

- 178

- 1

8.18* 10 = 0.9 (mod 10)

- #15

Loren Booda

- 3,119

- 4

Share:

- Replies
- 26

- Views
- 567

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 223

- Last Post

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 364

MHB
Identity

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 568

MHB
Floor identity

- Last Post

- Replies
- 0

- Views
- 430

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 517

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 441

- Replies
- 17

- Views
- 369

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 495

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 451