Suppose infinitely many blindfolded people, including yourself, are uniformly randomly arranged on positions one meter apart numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, ….
Intuition: The probability that you’re on an even-numbered position is 1/2 and that you’re on a position divisible by four is 1/4.
But then, while asleep, the people are rearranged according to the following rule. The people on each even-numbered position 2n are moved to position 4n. The people on the odd numbered positions are then shifted leftward as needed to fill up the positions not divisible by 4. Thus, we have the following movements:
1 → 1
2 → 4
3 → 2
4 → 8
5 → 3
6 → 12
7 → 5
8 → 16
9 → 6
and so on.
If the initial intuition was correct, then the probability that now you’re on a position that’s divisible by four is 1/2, since you’re now on a position divisible by four if and only if initially you were on a position divisible by two. Thus it seems that now people are no longer uniformly randomly arranged, since for a uniform arrangement you’d expect your probability of being in a position divisible by four to be 1/4.
This shows an interesting difference between shuffling a finite and an infinite deck of cards. If you shuffle a finite deck of cards that’s already uniformly distributed, it remains uniformly distributed no matter what algorithm you use to shuffle it, as long as you do so in a content-agnostic way (i.e., you don’t look at the faces of the cards). But if you shuffle an infinite deck of distinct cards that’s uniformly distributed in a content-agnostic way, you can destroy the uniform distribution, for instance by doubling the probability that a specific card is in a position divisible by four.
I am inclined to take this as evidence that the whole concept of a “uniformly shuffled” infinite deck of cards is confused.
3 comments:
"I am inclined to take this as evidence that the whole concept of a “uniformly shuffled” infinite deck of cards is confused."
Wow. This obvious fact of numbers and probabilities took you quite a while to see and understand, "Sherlock". Natural density
Nagy, Pruss has been aware of problems with uniformly shuffled infinite decks for a long time. Casually searching the blog reveals a post from 2013 on the subject of the paradoxes involved with infinite fair lotteries. Many of his posts since then, like this one, simply enumerate such paradoxes.
I hope this post provides some clarification, as it indeed would be surprising that Pruss was unaware of an "obvious fact of numbers and probabilities" despite having a PhD in Mathematics.
@Apologetics Squared
Really? "Pruss has been aware of problems with uniformly shuffled infinite decks for a long time."?
Is he also aware of a proper discrete infinite probability distribution such as the geometric distribution?
Has he ever considered first defining and discribing an apropiate probability space (Ω,F,ℙ), which he and everybody could apply to an "infinite lottery", like a normal and sane current mathematician would do?!?
Well, I am not aware of it - him being at all aware of the current probability and measure theory, that we and everybody have for the last century or so. If you would be so kind to point to a significant source, where he makes some sense other than nonsense, then that would be highly appreciated.
He can present an infinite amount of "black swans" and nonsense just as I can present an infinite amount of "white swans" and sense. SO WHAT?!?
WHAT'S THE POINT IN ALL OF THIS NONSESNE OF HIS (and yours)?!?
He (and also you and persons like you and Pruss) somehow thinks, that presenting and disrcibing a nonsensical impossible case, where a "married bachelor" is at the center and at the front, that then therefore somehow now either "marriages" or and "bachelors" are impossible.
I SIMPLY DON'T GET IT. WHY DOES PRUS (and you and the likes of you) WASTE SO MUCH TIME, EFFORT AND RESOURCES ON THIS NONSENSE OF PRUSS'S AND THE LIKES OF YOURS?!?
WHY?
Post a Comment