• AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    The cardinality of the two intervals [0,1] and [0,2] are equivalent. E.g. for every number in the former you could map it to a unique number in the latter and vice versa. (Multiply or divide by two)

    However in statistics, if you have a continuous variable with a uniform distribution on the interval [0, 2] and you want to know what the chances are of that value being between [0,1] then you do what you normally would for a discrete set and divide 1 by 2 because there are twice as many elements in the total than there are in half the range.

    In other words, for weird theoretical math the amount of numbers in the reals is equivalent to the amount of any elements in a subset of the reals, but other than those weird cases, you should treat it as though they are different sizes.

    • SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Sure, the length of the intervals is easily compared. But saying

      there are twice as many elements in the total than there are in half the range

      is false. They are both aleph 1. In other words, for each unique element you can pick from [0,2], I can pick a unique element from [0,1]. I could even pick two or more. So you can’t compare the number of elements in the two in a meaningful way other than saying they both belong to the same category of infinite.

      This is the whole crux of the coastline problem, isn’t it?