- #1

- 3,106

- 4

Mine is the Monty Hall paradox. For an introduction, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem" [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:

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

- 3,106

- 4

Last edited by a moderator:

- #2

- 179

- 0

It is surprisingly just over 50%. 23 is the smallest value for which the probability is over 50%.

Perhaps even more surprisingly, if there are only 50 people in a room, the probability is 96.5% that two people share a birthday.

Most people would guess a much lower value.

- #3

- 3,106

- 4

- #4

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 41,847

- 967

- #5

- 179

- 0

Do you understand this one? I don't... Not one bit. A friend told me about it and I immediately told him he had been misinformed. But he send me a link later and I was baffled... It is obviously illogical and it is a genuine paradox!

What is the explanation... It can't be done in real life, so what is the error?

edit: I have just been reading a book about maths, and there is a section about how our mathematical system of logic is fundamentally flawed. Something to do with sets of sets and so on. Is this to do with it?

- #6

- 534

- 1

The basic idea that the Banach-Tarski "paradox" is based on is that, say in 3D Euclidean space, you can assign a volume (a

This isn't possible in real life, of course, as in reality balls are composed of finitely many atoms.

You may or may not gain some more insight by looking at Wikipedia.

- #7

Fredrik

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 10,872

- 418

It's not true that "our mathematical system of logic is fundamentally flawed". You mention sets, so you're probably thinking of Russell's paradox. If we're allowed to form the set [itex]X=\{Y|Y\notin Y\}[/itex] (the set of all sets that aren't members of themselves), then we get a paradox. (Is X a member of X?). Such paradoxes can be avoided by putting restrictions on what sets we're allowed to form. See e.g. the ZFC axioms.edit: I have just been reading a book about maths, and there is a section about how our mathematical system of logic is fundamentally flawed. Something to do with sets of sets and so on. Is this to do with it?

The Banach-Tarski paradox is just a result of the fact that it isn't possible to define a "size" of an arbitrary subset of the real numbers in a meaningful way.

- #8

- 1,056

- 0

We have: Behind A, Behind B, Behind C. Only in 1/3 of the cases does it pay not to switch. In the other two cases,

It helps to draw a very simple grid indicative of that, and the answer is obvious. But, attempting to work it over in your mind, doesn't work so well as a simple diagram.

- #9

- 534

- 1

It's not true that "our mathematical system of logic is fundamentally flawed". You mention sets, so you're probably thinking of Russell's paradox. If we're allowed to form the set [itex]X=\{Y|Y\notin Y\}[/itex] (the set of all sets that aren't members of themselves), then we get a paradox. (Is X a member of X?). Such paradoxes can be avoided by putting restrictions on what sets we're allowed to form. See e.g. the ZFC axioms.

When I read his statement I was thinking more of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

- #10

- 623

- 0

For me it was understanding that there are more reals in (0,1) than all rationals

- #11

- 1,030

- 4

- #12

- 179

- 0

It's not true that "our mathematical system of logic is fundamentally flawed". You mention sets, so you're probably thinking of Russell's paradox. If we're allowed to form the set [itex]X=\{Y|Y\notin Y\}[/itex] (the set of all sets that aren't members of themselves), then we get a paradox. (Is X a member of X?). Such paradoxes can be avoided by putting restrictions on what sets we're allowed to form. See e.g. the ZFC axioms.

Yeah that's what I was thinking of. So until that paradox was discovered, where there no restrictions on what sets were allowed to form?

- #13

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,950

- 19

Yesish. Keep in mind that set theory had only recently been made explicit, and that there are obviously other restrictions (e.g. sets have to be sets). But in its initial form, set comprehension was indeed unrestricted.Yeah that's what I was thinking of. So until that paradox was discovered, where there no restrictions on what sets were allowed to form?

- #14

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 41,847

- 967

As Adriank said, it involves using non-measurable setsDo you understand this one? I don't... Not one bit. A friend told me about it and I immediately told him he had been misinformed. But he send me a link later and I was baffled... It is obviously illogical and it is a genuine paradox!

What is the explanation...

There is no error. Perhaps your "real life" is too restricted!It can't be done in real life, so what is the error?

The fact that "naive set theory" is not rigorous only means that we need a more sophisticated concept of "sets"- and that has already been developed.edit: I have just been reading a book about maths, and there is a section about how our mathematical system of logic is fundamentally flawed. Something to do with sets of sets and so on. Is this to do with it?

If you were thinking of Goedel's incompleteness theorem, that only says that we we will never have a "finished" mathematical system- there will always be more to do. I don't consider that a flaw!

- #15

Borek

Mentor

- 28,875

- 3,426

If you were thinking of Goedel's incompleteness theorem, that only says that we we will never have a "finished" mathematical system- there will always be more to do. I don't consider that a flaw!

As I have stated on numerous occasions I am mathematically challenged, so I can be wrong, but from what I understand it says that even if we will do everything, there will be still statements that we will be not able to say if they are true or false.

Could be that implies that there is still something to do outside of the system in which we can't decide...

Last edited:

- #16

- 1,030

- 4

Ooo, let's not forget that most real numbers are uncomputable.

- #17

- 816

- 7

I have just been reading a book about maths, and there is a section about how our mathematical system of logic is fundamentally flawed. Something to do with sets of sets and so on. Is this to do with it?

Here's something for your noggin. I don't know your familiarity with set theory, but I hope you can enjoy it.

By http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_theorem" [Broken], the number of subsets you can make from a given set will always be strictly greater than the number of elements in the set itself. That is, if S is a set and P(S) is the powerset of S, S < P(S).

Take A to be the set of all sets, defined by A = {S | S is s set}. By Cantor's Theorem, A < P(A). However, P(A), the powerset of A, is also the set of all sets. So it's cardinality is both equal to itself and inequal to itself. A paradox.

The resolution to this paradox is something similar to what your comment above hints at. It's not a fundamental flaw, inasmuch as it's not really a flaw. Most mathematicians don't need to care about it at all, and boring old set theory will almost never get you into trouble as long as you're not looking for it.

Last edited by a moderator:

- #18

- 15,415

- 687

That's a good one, too. [itex]2^{\aleph_0}>\aleph_0[/itex] is a mathematical equivalent to relativity theory in the sense that both are crackpot magnets. Now that Fermat's last theorem has been put to bed, the majority of "interesting" unsolicited proofs that professors of mathematics receive from the lay community are attempts to disprove Cantor's result.For me it was understanding that there are more reals in (0,1) than all rationals

- #19

- 623

- 0

That an object with finite area can have an infinite perimeter.

Are you talking about fractals/space filling curves? What you said made me think of something else, objects with infinite area but finite volume (Gabriel's horn is the one I was thinking of).

- #20

- 15,415

- 687

- #21

Fredrik

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 10,872

- 418

- #22

- 623

- 0

Yes, [tex]|\mathbb{R}| = |\mathbb{R}^{n}|[/tex] I believe

- #23

- 534

- 1

This would be my pick for the counterintuitive math thing. :)

- #24

- 179

- 0

For me it was understanding that there are more reals in (0,1) than all rationals

There are more reals between any two different rationals, than all rationals overall.

This is perhaps a slightly more interesting concept. Although it is essentially the same.

Besides, this is an unusual definition of "more" anyway. It is not the same sort of "more" that we usually use, all that we really know is that there isn't a way of counting (or pairing with the naturals) all the irrationals.

Last edited:

- #25

- 534

- 1

Yes, you have.

Share: