19/09/03 23:06:38.35 TckWkbgX.net
下記Denis "I think it is ok, because the only probability measure we need is uniform probability on {0,1,…,N-1}"
に対して
厳密な数学の証明がないというのが、Pruss氏、確率論の専門家さんと、私ね（＾＾
（そもそも、Denis氏に対する批判” but other people argue it's not ok, because we would need to define a measure on sequences, and moreover axiom of choice messes everything up.”もあるよ）
(>>241)
そこを（数学的に厳密でないと）批判しているのが、Alexander Pruss氏だよ
URLﾘﾝｸ(mathoverflow.net)
Probabilities in a riddle involving axiom of choice Dec 9 '13
(抜粋)
asked Dec 9 '13 at 16:16 Denis
I think it is ok, because the only probability measure we need is uniform probability on {0,1,…,N-1}, but other people argue it's not ok, because we would need to define a measure on sequences, and moreover axiom of choice messes everything up.
Alexander Pruss answered
The probabilistic reasoning depends on a conglomerability assumption, namely that given a fixed sequence u￣ , the probability of guessing correctly is (n?1)/n, then for a randomly selected sequence, the probability of guessing correctly is (n?1)/n.
But we have no reason to think the event of guessing correctly is measurable with respect to the probability measure induced by the random choice of sequence and index i, and we have no reason to think that the conglomerability assumption is appropriate.
A quick way to see that the conglomerability assumption is going to be dubious is to consider the analogy of the Brown-Freiling argument against the Continuum Hypothesis (see here for a discussion).
URLﾘﾝｸ(www.mdpi.com)
つづく