LESSWRONG
LW

Comment Permalink
Viktor Rehnberg6mo10

Or a counterexample from the other direction would be that you can't describe a uniform distribution of the empty set either (I think). And that would feel even weirder to call "bigger".

See in context
by Alok Singh
1 min read20th Jan 20235 comments

2

World Modeling
Frontpage

For a finite set, one can describe a uniform distribution. There isn't a natural way to do so for a countable set. But for a hyperfinite set, one can describe a uniform distribution through a probability density. So in some ways the countable is "bigger".

New Comment
5 comments, sorted by
top scoring
Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 4:45 AM
[-]Viktor Rehnberg6mo21

Why would this property mean that it is "bigger"? You can construct a uniform distribution of a uncountable set through a probability density as well. However, using the same measure on a countably infinite subset of the uncountable set would show that the countable set has measure 0.

[-]Viktor Rehnberg6mo10

Or a counterexample from the other direction would be that you can't describe a uniform distribution of the empty set either (I think). And that would feel even weirder to call "bigger".

[-]Alexander Gietelink Oldenziel6mo10

How can the uniform distribution on the natural numbers be used?

[-]Alok Singh6mo10

The point is that such a distribution (uniform on countable infinite set like naturals), is not internal, and therefore external. it'll depend on the specific ultrafilter used under the hood.

for how to use it, see either alain roberts or sylvia wenmackers

[-]Alexander Gietelink Oldenziel6mo10

Could you give a sneak peak on how Sylvia /Alain use these uniform distributions?

Moderation Log

New to LessWrong?

Getting Started

FAQ

Library