Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:17:49 UTC No. 16072068

bump

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 01:12:59 UTC No. 16073210

>>16071787
stupid fag thread

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 01:19:38 UTC No. 16073220

>>16071787
I don't believe it is since [math] \mathcal{U}(0, \infty) [/math] isn't normalisable, so not a distribution. Probability isn't my strong point, so I could be wrong.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 04:57:49 UTC No. 16073502

>>16073220
can't it be converted to a normal distribution or will the resulting integral not be integtrable?

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 05:01:05 UTC No. 16073505

>>16073502
I don't think so, but even if it could, part of the question is "all numbers have an equal chance of being chosen". So a normal distribution would violate that.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 05:11:40 UTC No. 16073522

>>16073505
i don't think you are getting me, a uniform distribution has an equivalent normal distribution form, just like binomial, bernoulli, etc evaluating it to this doesn't make it normal, it just makes it convenient for analysis, it's like converting dy/dx into a fraction of limits, is this a fraction, of course not

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 05:14:45 UTC No. 16073528

>>16073522
The more you know. But I still don't think it would work, the issue is that original "distribution" isn't a distribution at all.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 05:22:03 UTC No. 16073541

>>16073528
how do you know when you don't understand probability well enough?

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 05:35:21 UTC No. 16073560

>>16073541
I don't, that's what I said "I don't think ti would work". Just my thinking based on what I know, which could be insufficient to properly answer the question.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:05:52 UTC No. 16077241

>>16071787
there is no uniform distribution on the integers. If x had a 0.00001% chance of happening then everything would and that adds up to too much. So everything would have to be 0 probability and then it adds to 0, not 1

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 05:41:19 UTC No. 16078689

>>16077241
I don't understand your statement, you can make the probability small enough to account for any set regardless of it's cardinality, the fact that you chose the probability to prove your point means i can also do the same