> Two fun paradoxes that are in that rabbit hole:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_paradox_(probability)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borel%E2%80%93Kolmogorov_paradox
Hey, I never claimed it was the unique answer. I'm just saying that
anybody who asks Sage for a random binary word word
On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 1:56:53 PM UTC, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> Well. I always assumed that we should only implement a random_element()
> method when it was somehow uniform ?
>
Two fun paradoxes that are in that rabbit hole:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_paradox_(probability)
http
>> - If you iterate on it, you just get finite words
Well, first there *IS* a bug there :
sage: Words(3,finite=False)[1]
word: 1
This word is finite while I asked for the set of infinite words. The patch
at #12867 fixes it by refusing to return the first element (no iteration).
So for a start,
On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 1:33:45 PM UTC, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> - If you iterate on it, you just get finite words
>
So? If you iterate over ZZ you never get numbers > 10^20.
The rest of your email is just pointing out that there is no uniform
probability measure on infinite sets. Again, so
Yoo !!
> You can still iterate over *some* elements.
Indeed. My problem with Words(2) is the following :
- If you iterate on it, you just get finite words
- Words(2).random_element() breaks right now, which is fixed in #12867.
There are two patches there, but if you use mine call to ran
