Scientifically Running Below Expectation

Hand samples are measured in natural numbers. Which is countably infinite. Infinitesimal s on the rwal number line are part of an uncountable infinity

technically that's the proof, they are whole numbers. i talked about this with neilly a while back and we realized it was only a problem of construction. for instance if you just change the notation to

... n n . n n ...

rather than N.n n ...

or N

so ... r r . r r ...

you can see the proof is only true by construction and doesn't apply to the actual relations of numbers greater than one (whether they are natural or real).

there should be other ways of demonstrating this, and it seems likely we could obtain variations on N in R+ (hyperreals) that would help with the first post.

you can see according to this notation there is a relation to complexity theory.

for instance we are actually enumerating the number at some pace "in real time"

so in the case of an infinite length string...

... _ _ _ . _ _ _ ...

or

... _ _ _ ...

or

... _ _ _

we can imagine stringing together infinite length strings

... [string] ... [string] ...

where the string is obtained by some construction or formulation.

i could see this as

... (pi) ... (22/7) ...

or any string composed of concatenated strings obtained by formulation of irrational numbers.

the actual construction of cantor's proof isn't technically correct.

if we look at how the natural numbers and the real numbers are constructed, we can see the natural numbers could be represented by a ray

<----
... n n

while the real numbers would be represented by a line

<----- . ----->
... r r . r r ...

thus to actually represent the real numbers the list would have to be constructed:

____1____
... r r . r r ...

____2____
... r r . r r ...

the conventional list is actually a list of the natural numbers from left to right instead of right to left (as we ordinarily see them).

but the proof actually demonstrates the series(s) of natural numbers can't be counted by the natural numbers...

it's important to remember that Cantor was a schizophrenic, and so his perspective is important because it was the best scientifically precise perspective at the time of his writing.

this turns out to be a lot more frustrating than it looks at first hash. it looks like we're finally headed in the right direction though.

the problem is that it's really difficult to gauge between colors of infinities.

for instance we can see there appears to be only one or two infinite length rays or lines of width 1 (which i previously called with 0).

so for instance you see

0 0 0 ...

or 1 1 1 ...

is the only case of that nature of an infinite length string with one digital value.

but then as the traditional proof goes if you introduce infinite length strings of any combination of 0's and 1's, we get a grid of infinite length strings that is itself a grid with infinite entries. but as the proof shows, the list with an infinite quantity of entries is not complete. if it were complete, it would list all infinite length strings, but the proof shows it doesn't do this. the diagonal is constructed to be an infinite length string, and by construction it isn't on this list although it fits all the criteria.

this is of course very upsetting because the proof is successful with only two digital values, the binary values 0 and 1.

but suppose we had a base 20 system of fingers and toes or that we numbered all the 70,000 or so chinese characters in order.

then a string of finite length like "jingdangxi" could have a corresponding value in the millions.

it would be great if we could say just how much greater the total quantity of infinite length strings is when we perform operations with digital values like 0 and 1, 0 and 1 and 2, 0, and 1 and 2 and 3, and so on for our places.

but so far it doesn't seem like anyone really knows this. in advanced logic classes structures and so on are introduced to look at this problem, but unfortunately i was forced to end the class early due to illness.

for me, the problem in poker is that you have variable length sessions. so each session takes a hand sample size of some finite length, surely.

then our composition for our strings could be:

... (hands per session) ... (hands per session) ... (hands per session) ...

or (hands per session) (hands per session) (hands per session)

this seems to be a really huge problem since we do things in between sessions like exercise or meditate and so the composition of the strings is non-homogeneous. there seems to be really no reliable way to increase our winrate mathematically.

obviously it's scientically possible for something that is possible to happen?

eh, i mean simplest answer is that science is supposed to be reproduced under specifiable conditions. if it can't be reproduced or is just some freak occurrence it's not "science"

i mean i worry all the time that my human body is retarded and therefore is constantly being blasted to pieces by psychic raichu neo-nazis. i don't really think my physical body is retarded, but it could be. i'm not gonna murder my cat because i think he's a secret shaolin monk blasting me to bits with his fur coat. if he's really blasting me to bits with my own unskillful chi because of the nature of his fur coat that doesn't mean i'm going to kill him. i just have to accept his nature. from an evolutionary perspective i deserve to be blasted to bits by the chi he's reflecting. we can't justify killing him just because he seems superior to us or disagrees with our disharmony.

we also have no idea that the problem wouldn't disappear if we could formulate it scientifically. it doesn't seem like it's his will to blast me to bits, but that's just the state of our scientific understanding at this point. presumably a lot of world problems could disappear if we could just explain them in language and perception.