I was suggesting the outcome was inconsistent, in a non-mathematical sense of the term. It would perhaps better be described as a paradox of ZFC theory.
There are only countably many people. The well-ordering of the integers is accepted in ZF. You only need the axiom of choice if you want to well-order a larger set.
Well, once you bring infinities into it, things get screwy; there’s really no sense in which “more” people rolled “not-six” than rolled “six”.
Considering all the other ways that infinities make things crazy, I think that 50% might actually be the right answer, but I can’t prove this.
So, the angel pairing makes you dice 6 in one half of all the cases. Without this, only in the every day 17%?
Does this also holds for the 1000000 sides dice?
(I also think that infinities make things crazy. But just too crazy, inconsistent in fact.)
Infinities don’t make things inconsistent. People make things inconsistent.
Honestly, I don’t have a clue!
I don’t remember anyone saying this yet. Up—voted.
There’s only inconsistency when you mix in the axiom of choice, which is implicitly done here.
Not true. If the ZF is consistent, ZFC is also. If ZFC isn’t, neither is ZF.
I was suggesting the outcome was inconsistent, in a non-mathematical sense of the term. It would perhaps better be described as a paradox of ZFC theory.
There are only countably many people. The well-ordering of the integers is accepted in ZF. You only need the axiom of choice if you want to well-order a larger set.