- Joined
- 21 Jun 06
- Moves
- 82236
07 Oct 13
2 edits
Originally posted by bikingvikingTHIS POST IS ONLY FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT KNOW ELEMENTARY MATH. Please stop reading. Don't read it. Really. 🙂
Like a probabuility of 10^(-1000) then less than that. Which is zero.
Originally posted by twhitehead
No, less than that is [b]not zero.[/b]
Bikingviking here: SORRY for my long post. But, I think that MR twhitehead just broke the stupidity record...
twhitehead: No my friend. I never said it was. You are mistaken. This is very elementary math, which then you get wrong.
10^(-1000) = { Look! It is a plus sign! do you know what a plus is? perhaps I have to explain that, therefore I have to explain that as well? would you like that? Hm...} = (+)10^(-1000) = 1 / 1000. Perhaps also (sci. notation used by calculators). 1 / 1000 = E*(-1000). The E is shorthand for 10^(something). I could use Swedish math notation also (I live in Sweden) but that would narrow the audience.
I will talk some Swedish (some call it Swoddish) here for making a point. Hej alla. Sitter vid en dator utan a,a,o sa ni far det utan prickar. Loven faller ner. Idag var jag darfor tvungen att mala ner alla lov med en grasklippare. Sen rengjorde jag kompostbehallaren och atervinningskarlet samt tunnan vi slanger skrap i.
Try using google as a calculator next time?
(Dunno how to add extended precision in google. Probably not supported. Like in 10 ^ (-100) - Google gives you a zero. - Because of normal, non scientific mode).
Putting in { 10 ^ (-8) = } in google search. - Gives the answer 1e-8. - Positive ! Yay.
Putting in { 8 ^ (0) = } in google search. - Gives the answer 1. Also positive.
Now. Let's talk science. People who do not know that 10^(-1000) is a positive number. Please don't post and say it is negative. Because that will most likely embarrase you.
07 Oct 13
Originally posted by bikingvikingThe disagreement is with your statement that very small probabilities become zero.
Then quickly the extremly small probability start decreasing very rapidly. That means that it becomes zero. Not "close to zero" but zero. Like a probabuility of 10^(-1000) then less than that. Which is zero.
They do not.
07 Oct 13
2 edits
Originally posted by bikingvikingThat number is definitely positive but very small, 10 to the minus 1000 power.
THIS POST IS [b]ONLY FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT KNOW ELEMENTARY MATH. Please stop reading. Don't read it. Really. 🙂
Bikingviking here: SORRY for my long post. But, I think that MR twhitehead just broke the stupidity record...
twhitehead: No my friend. I never said it was. You are mistaken. This is very elementary math, which then you ...[text shortened]... e number. Please don't post and say it is negative. Because that will most likely embarrase you.[/b]
I'm not sure I can even enter that # in my trusty HP48G. It doesn't like the direct 10 E -1000. says syntax error. It accepts 10E-500 but not 10E-501, which goes Invalid syntax, so it seems 10E-500 is the maximum exponent I can enter in the HP48.
I think I remember that from the manual now that I think about it.
I guess it would take something like Matlab to do that.
- Joined
- 21 Jun 06
- Moves
- 82236
08 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseThat depends on "what kind of computer you have" (of course) since there is something called "machine epsilon".
That number is definitely positive but very small, 10 to the minus 1000 power.
I'm not sure I can even enter that # in my trusty HP48G. It doesn't like the direct 10 E -1000. says syntax error. It accepts 10E-500 but not 10E-501, which goes Invalid syntax, so it seems 10E-500 is the maximum exponent I can enter in the HP48.
I think I remember that fro ...[text shortened]... the manual now that I think about it.
I guess it would take something like Matlab to do that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_epsilon
matlab - functions for quickly get what your machine epsilon is .... functions: ...... "eps(0)" and "realmin" ..... according to
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10261777/matlab-numbers-smaller-than-realmin
08 Oct 13
Originally posted by bikingvikingI have a degree in math, and I am perfectly well aware that the number you gave was positive and that zero is less than that number.
THIS POST IS ONLY FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT KNOW ELEMENTARY MATH
Probabilities are in fact always between zero and 1. (inclusive).
But you claimed that a probability of less than 10^(-1000) was zero, which is false. A probability of 10^(-2000) is less than your probability and is non-zero.
Maybe you should consider that maybe it is not my grasp of maths that is at fault but your grasp of English.
However, if you claim that what you really meant to say originally was that Zero is less than a small probability, then your original post makes no sense.
- Joined
- 21 Jun 06
- Moves
- 82236
08 Oct 13
5 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadTwhitehead said: "No, less than that is not zero". Your use of the words ...."than that" ..... is what led to this misunderstanding.
I have a degree in math....... Post shortened.
Sorry twhitehead. Really. 🙂 Let's bury the war-axe? It was late in the day. I read your post wrong. I also had to hurry because another person was with me at the computer and pressed me to hurry. Hope you understand... I snapped. I apologize.... Besides, my computer almost stopped working wich made the "pointer thing" hop between words so it was hard to type. Had to buy a new PC (they cost money you know). I took "advanced calculus" course exam 4 times.
Let's move on! Please? No one is perfect. I am only human.
- Joined
- 21 Jun 06
- Moves
- 82236
08 Oct 13
4 edits
Originally posted by humyExellent! Absolutely. Made my day! Many people, very much so, CARE ABOUT these things. To them these things are important. Read about vacuum on wikipedia, can't find it now.... [New "strange particles" (can't explain, not my subject) pop up when you remove everything.]
actually, vacuum isn't even 'virtually' nothing.
Please let's ignore the people who don't care. Ignorance. ... Damn, this forum needs some moderation. Let's move on now? Yes, we move on.
08 Oct 13
Originally posted by bikingvikingParticles pop in and out of existence because of quantum mechanics, there is a finite possibility of there being a particle at any one place because of the uncertainty principle and so stuff shows up, here and gone in a trice. Enough of them come into existence to effect real objects, thus the Casimir effect.
Exellent! Absolutely. Made my day! [b]Many people, very much so, CARE ABOUT these things. To them these things are important. Read about vacuum on wikipedia, can't find it now.... [New "strange particles" (can't explain, not my subject) pop up when you remove everything.]
Please let's ignore the people who don't care. Ignorance. ... Damn, this forum needs some moderation. Let's move on now? Yes, we move on.[/b]
If you take two plates very close together, the plates slow down the particles between the plates but the particles are being made at the normal rate on the outside of the plates so it makes a tiny force drawing the two plates together almost like it was a plus and minus electrical field but the plates can be totally neutral and they still get pulled together a tiny bit.
09 Oct 13
The definitions you are all using are at least 40 years out of date. A vacuum is defined to be when all the fields are in their lowest energy configurations, this is known as the ground state. That is all a vacuum is, it doesn't depend on particle separation or approximations, it depends on energy. If all the quantum fields within a causally connected patch are in their ground states then you have a vacuum, if not you don't.
The Higgs field has the interesting property that it's ground state does not correspond to zero field (which is the case for the other fields we see) and so the weak force behaves the way it does. This is unique and is the only known case for which a quantum vacuum does not correspond to a classical vacuum.