The Grey Labyrinth is a collection of puzzles, riddles, mind games, paradoxes and other intellectually challenging diversions. Related topics: puzzle games, logic puzzles, lateral thinking puzzles, philosophy, mind benders, brain teasers, word problems, conundrums, 3d puzzles, spatial reasoning, intelligence tests, mathematical diversions, paradoxes, physics problems, reasoning, math, science.

morrisonlucas · Daedalian Member

(I'm assuming that X₀ is the number of integers. i.e. the smallest infinity.)

My previous post most mostly to show that everything is non-intuitive in this realm. I was really trying to find a simple one-to-one mapping between the two sets {no threes} and {some threes}, and that was as close as I could come without resorting just ordering them. That being said:

I agree with both of the following statements:

(1) There are as many integers that contain the digit 3 as there are total integers.
(2) There are as many integers that do not contain the digit 3 as there are total integers.

From this I do not think that it is fair to say that 100% of integers contain the number 3. To obtain the number 100% you need to divide X₀ by itself, which is a meaningless operation.

CrystyB-if you tell me which symbol you were using for X I'll edit this one for consistant notation.

CrystyB · Misunderstood Guy

Well first of all, one would have to define percentages to be able to use them in infinte set theory, so no, no inf/inf nedetermination. Remember i did say it would be fair to say 100% of all numbers are cubes of some integers!

So why not all threes too?

Secondly, click on the icon for editing my post and copy-paste the sym tags (or whatever else you need), b/c i can't tell you what À is - i use CharMap...

Third, mith i think you should open a new mistakes, and rename this as 'debates over long-forgotten puzzles'