3 ms·
The problem here is that you are adding together two values for a specific case of x and then adding together the result for all values of x (is that clear? pro
by jamii 13y ago
The problem here is that you are adding together two values for a specific case of x and then adding together the result for all values of x (is that clear? probably not).
It's analogous to another age old problem: what is the value of 1 + (-1) + 1 + (-1) + 1 + (-1) ...
You could argue that (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) ... = 0 + 0 ... = 0.
You could also argue that 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) = 1 + 0 ... = 1.
There are actually way to group the numbers in that series to get any integer answer you want :D
Since we haven't actually defined a distribution over x the problem is not well-defined anyway. But lets pick, say, P(x=2^i) = 1/(2^i) for all i>1.
Then the expected value of A is
E(A) = (1/2 * $2) + (1/4 * $4) + (1/8 * $8) ...
= +infinity.
Similary E(B) = +infinity.
Now for E(B-A)
E(B-A) = (1/2 * $1) + (1/2 * -$1) + (1/4 * $2) + (1/4 * -$2) ...
Like the example above, we can add this up in different ways:
E(B-A) = ((1/2 * $1) + (1/2 * -$1)) + ((1/4 * $2) + (1/4 * -$2)) ...
= $0 + $0 ...
= $0
Or
E(B-A) = (1/2 * $1) + ((1/2 * -$1) + (1/4 * $2)) + ((1/4 * -$2) ...
= $0.5 + $0 + $0 ...
= $0.5
When adding up infinite numbers of things you have to be very careful. I go into more detail in this thread - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6387344 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6387344
Cookie please :D
- scythe 13y agoIn my original version of the post I had intended to argue for a geometric mean, which was sort of a joke, as it only works where f(x) is a constant k*x. So the statement "A false resolution follows, first to spot the problem..." appears in the post. Upon seeing this an enterprising and intelligent person may have clicked "reply" While writing this I realized that inverting the definition of A gave a different resolution based loosely on operator theory, and posted that instead. A couple minutes later I realized the mistake and changed the beginning to refer to the first to spot "a" problem. The argument you've presented is good, but you have attacked the well-foundedness of the problem itself rather than the logic I've applied. I'm not sure if you get the cookie.
- jamii 13y agoGoddamn, what does it take to get a cookie around here? :D