rnollet
22
19
rnollet has not written any posts yet.
A Possible Way To Achieve All Your Goals
No link here?
If you had time for writing a bit about the pros and cons of a few books, I would be very interested.
Thank you for this detailed answer.
Some more questions:
notice if it's something that calls to you
I am not sure exactly what you mean here. From what I am reading, it is very difficult to know what it is without having experienced it. So how am I supposed to know? Do you have examples of motivations that would not be right?
(I would say that I personally feel very curious as to what it looks like, and that I would be significantly sad to learn that I can’t even try to get there.)
... (read more)I highly recommend practicing as part of an organized community. […] You're also looking for a teacher who can be your mentor in
So, what if I want to get started on my own path toward enlightenment? What should I do? What should I avoid?
Oh, it looks exactly like the kind of reference that everyone here seems to be aware of and I am not. ^^ I will be reading that. Thanks a lot.
Ok. Thanks. So:
implies
?
If that is your reasoning, I do not see how you go from the former to the latter.
Is it a general fact that:
or does it work only for 0.5?
In that case, probability is n/N, and if we look for 0.5 probability, we get 0.5 = 1546/N which gives us N = 2992 with 0.5 probability.
Again, I am confused.
From what you write I understand this :
But from your other comment, it looks like that last step and conclusion is not what you mean. Can you confirm that?
Or do you mean :
Or something else entirely?
Thank you. It is clearer that way. ^^ I feel like it would be less confusing (more true?) to write “below 30” rather than “30” in the sentence I quoted. ;-)
I looked at my clock and it was 15:14. It gives a 50 percent probability that the total number of hours in a day is 30
I am curious how you got that number.
It seems to me that, for any reasonnable prior, it it more probable that there is 16 hours in a day rather than 30.
Maybe I am misunderstanding your “50 percent probability”?
I expect you already know some of these, but for anyone interested:
-
-
-
... (read more)Asaf Karagila’s Anti-anti Banach–Tarski arguments. A short blog post whose main point is that “The axiom of choice is not at fault here. The axiom of infinity is.” As an illustration, he shows that if, instead of the axiom of choice, one assumes dependent choice and that all sets of reals are Lebesgue measurable, then there is a partition of the real line into strictly more parts than elements.
The Banach T-Rex says the same.
By the same author: Zornian Functional Analysis, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Axiom of Choice. A 30-page article discussing some of the (often