You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

nshepperd comments on On the importance of taking limits: Infinite Spheres of Utility - Less Wrong Discussion

23 Post author: aspera 12 October 2013 09:18PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (58)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: nshepperd 13 October 2013 01:59:41AM *  6 points [-]

This is actually a good example of the difference between pointwise and uniform convergence. Consider the characteristic function of the vase at time t, g_t : N -> {0, 1}. Then g_t(n) = 1 if and only if ball n is in the vase at time t. It will actually help to convert g_t to a function on the real numbers, by making f_t(x) = g_t(floor(x)).

Now, for each ball n, there is a time when it will be destroyed, and therefore will never be in the vase after that time. So the characteristic function f_t(x) converges pointwise to f(x) = 0. This is presumably what you mean by the limit of the vase being the empty set.

But the criterion of uniform convergence is that for any epsilon>0 there is a t such that f_t is within epsilon of the limit everywhere. Which is obviously not true, because at any time t there are some balls in the vase, and so the characteristic function is 1 somewhere. So f_t(x) does not uniformly converge to anything.

As it happens, without uniform convergence, the limit of the integrals of f_t(x) (which just so happens to be the number of balls in the vase, by my setup) is not generally equal to the integral of the limiting function f(x). So, in a way it is not really true that you can say

in the limit as T approaches infinity, there are infinitely many balls in the vase

as the integral does not transfer to the limit.