• FartyMcFarter 10 hours ago

    I find it quite interesting that pi+e and pi*e are not proven to be irrational (although it's proven that at least one of them is irrational [1]).

    It would be mind-blowing if either of them were rational numbers, yet it's very hard to prove either way.

    [1] https://math.stackexchange.com/a/159353

    • rokob 9 hours ago

      I could believe pi*e rational but pi+e being rational would blow my mind.

      • dvt 4 hours ago

        I'm kind of in the opposite camp. If Schanuel's conjecture is true, then e^iπ = 0 would be the only non-trivial relation between e, π, and i over the complex numbers. And the fact that we already found it seems unlikely.

        • sunshowers 8 hours ago

          I would be shocked if either of them were proven to be rational.

          • programjames 7 hours ago

            Well, e^pi - pi = 20, is rational.

            • nimih 6 hours ago

              Do you have a citation for the rationality of e^pi - pi? I couldn't find anything alluding to anything close to that after some cursory googling, and, indeed, the OEIS sequence of the value's decimal expansion[1] doesn't have notes or references to such a fact (which you'd perhaps expect for a rational number, as it would eventually be repeating).

              [1] https://oeis.org/A018938

              • chowells 5 hours ago
                • nimih 5 hours ago

                  Is the joke here that if you lie to people (on the Internet or otherwise), they’ll take it at face value for a little bit and then decide you’re either a moron or an asshole once they realize their mistake?

                  • chowells 5 hours ago

                    Nah. I'd read it as there being an expectation that the audience already knew the joke and they were playing the favorites.

              • toth 6 hours ago

                Very nice, didn't know about that one!

                In a similar vein, Ramanujan famously proved that e^(sqrt(67) pi) is an integer.

                And obviously exp(i pi) is an integer as well, but that's less fun.

                (Note: only one of the above claims is correct)

                • mvdtnz 3 hours ago

                  You didn't know that one because it's a lie. He's telling lies.

                • hollerith 7 hours ago

                  It is not exactly 20.

                • chongli 8 hours ago

                  I mean you just have to get to the point where all of the trailing decimal places (bits) form a repeating pattern with finite period. But since there are infinitely many such patterns it becomes extremely hard to rule out without some mechanism of proof.

                • cbm-vic-20 9 hours ago

                  Is the result of the addition or multiplication of an irrational number with any other real number not equal to it (and non-zero in the case of multiplication) always irrational? ex: pi + e, pi * e, but also sqrt(2) - 1 or sqrt(3) * 2.54 ?

                  • AlotOfReading 9 hours ago

                    No, sqrt(5)*sqrt(16*5)=20. More trivially, there's always a number y such that z = x*y for a given irrational x. You can give similar examples for all the other basic operations.

                    • LPisGood 8 hours ago

                      Take any irrational a where 1/a is also irrational. Then a * 1/a = 1.

                      Even moving from addition and multiplication to exponentials won’t save you: there are irrational numbers to irrational powers that are raational.

                      • umanwizard 8 hours ago

                        > Take any irrational a where 1/a is also irrational.

                        In other words: any irrational at all

                        • pfdietz 8 hours ago

                          The nonconstructive proof of that is simple and fun: either sqrt(2)^sqrt(2) or (sqrt(2)^sqrt(2))^sqrt(2) is just such an example.

                        • aidenn0 9 hours ago

                          Definitely not; consider the formula for calculating the log of any base given only the natural logarithm. That can result e.g. in two irrational numbers, the ratio of which are integers.

                          • ryandv 6 hours ago

                            There is an important distinction to be made here. Examples in this thread show cases of irrational numbers multiplied by or added to other irrational numbers producing real numbers, but in the special case of a rational number added to or multiplied by an irrational number, the result is always irrational.

                            Otherwise, supposing for instance that (n/m)x is rational for integers n, m, both non-zero, and irrational x, we can express (n/m)x as a ratio of two integers p, q, q non-zero: (n/m)x = p/q if and only if x = (mp)/(qn). Since integers are closed under multiplication, x is rational, against supposition; thus by contradiction (n/m)x is irrational for any rational r = (n/m), with integers n, m both non-zero. Similarly for the case of addition.

                            • umanwizard 8 hours ago

                              pi and -pi are both irrational and their sum is zero.

                              • yen223 5 hours ago

                                irrational number + rational number = irrational number [1]

                                irrational number + irrational number could be rational or irrational.

                                5 - sqrt(2) is irrational

                                sqrt(2) is irrational

                                Add them up you get 5, which is rational

                                [1] If it were rational, you will be able to construct a rational representation of the irrational number using this equation.

                              • tshaddox 9 hours ago

                                Out of curiosity, why would it be mind-blowing if either of them were a rational number?

                                • charlieyu1 9 hours ago

                                  If pi+e=a/b then you can write one as a/b minus the other

                                  Which is pretty insane because these two numbers are not supposed to be related

                                  • hn_throwaway_99 9 hours ago

                                    > Which is pretty insane because these two numbers are not supposed to be related

                                    Not really, there is Euler's identity: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity

                                    • sunshowers 8 hours ago

                                      That one's "just" a special case of how complex numbers happen to work. I think the really cool relationship between e and pi is the fact that the Gaussian integral acts as a fixpoint/attractor when sampling and summing data from any distribution (this is the central limit theorem):

                                      ∫(−∞ to ∞) e^(-x²) dx = √π

                                      I think the attractor property makes it a little more fundamental in some sense, whereas Euler's identity is "just" one special case of e^ix. The Gaussian is kind of the "lowest energy" or "highest entropy" state of randomness, which I think is really cool.

                                      • octachron 6 hours ago

                                        This is only true for distributions with finite variance (and the edge case of distribution with slowly growing infinite variance).

                                        And for a given variance, gaussian distributions are exactly the maximal entropy distribution.

                                    • pishpash 6 hours ago

                                      e and pi are highly related, both pop out of periodic phenomenon.

                                  • gosub100 9 hours ago
                                    • paulddraper an hour ago

                                      > although it's proven that at least one of them is irrational

                                      And not particular to e and pi. More generally, at least one of a+b and a*b must be irrational, if an and b are transcendental.

                                    • fermigier 10 hours ago

                                      Whoa, good to know that Henri Cohen was involved in this story.

                                      He is the co-creator of PARI/GP, the algorithmic number theoretic C library that I used for my thesis (https://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/) as well as four books in Springer's Graduate Texts in Mathematics (GTM 138, 193, 239 and 240 - most mathematicians achieve fame with just one book in this series).

                                      • falcor84 11 hours ago

                                        > When asked where his formulas came from, he claimed, “They grow in my garden.”

                                        This makes me think of Ramanujan's notebooks. And based on my limited interaction with professional mathematicians, I think there is something to this - some hidden brain circuitry whereby mathematicians can access mathematical truths in some way based on their "beauty", without going through anything resembling rigorous intermediate steps. The metaphor that comes to my sci-fi-fed mind is that something in their brains allows them to "travel via hyperspace".

                                        And this then makes me think of GenAI - recent progress has been quite interesting, with models like o1 and o3 at times making silly mistakes, and at other times making incredible leaps - could it be that AI's are able to access this "garden" too? Or does there remain something that we humans have access to, while AIs do not?

                                        • PhilipRoman 8 hours ago

                                          Terrence Tao wrote a nice blog post which captures this idea (post-rigorous phase)

                                          https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/theres-more-to-...

                                        • ysofunny 10 hours ago

                                          it's like learning the letters of the alphabet permits one to see meaning behind their glyphs, namely the words; and then through reading text you perceive stories and so on

                                          when somebody learns enough letters of "the mathematical alphabet of concepts" one begins to perceive a sort of "meaning", the mathematical realm i.e. the "garden"

                                          • pro14 10 hours ago

                                            > When asked where his formulas came from, he claimed, “They grow in my garden.”

                                            It is a "joke:" "a thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter."

                                            "Formula:" "a concise way of expressing information symbolically."

                                            "Garden:" "a small piece of ground used to grow vegetables, fruit, herbs, or flowers."

                                            Similar to:

                                            > When asked where his HTML/CSS/JavaScript came from, he claimed, "It grows on trees."

                                            This type of joke is called "Absurdity:" The humor is amplified by the absurdity of imagining abstract things like formulas or programming code as physical objects that could grow in nature.

                                            > my sci-fi-fed mind is that something in their brains allows them to "travel via hyperspace".

                                            What is a "hyperspace?" Are you talking about hyperbolic geometry?

                                            > "and threw paper airplanes"

                                            Were the paper airplanes also traveling via hyperspace?

                                            • tim-kt 10 hours ago

                                              It's difficult to read this comment. Why are you writing like this?

                                              • pro14 7 hours ago

                                                Can you please help me understand where you are having difficulty reading the comment? I am genuinely interested. It seems I need to improve my writing skills.

                                                • tim-kt 5 hours ago

                                                  To sum it up in one sentence: You don't need to explain words that I can look up in a dictionary, unless you are commenting on that explanation. I know what the word "joke" means but you are forcing me to either read the definition or look for where you continue your comment. It's also slightly demeaning since I can read this as "you don't know what the word joke is, let me explain it to you". You do this again for the words formula, garden and absurdity. If you really need to give extra details to a word that you are using, you can do it in brackets (like this) or with a footnote [1].

                                                  The definitions of the words formula and garden also seem out of place because they don't add anything to what you were saying -- at least I don't see any analogies that would make the joke funnier.

                                                  [1] Like this.

                                          • tejohnso 11 hours ago

                                            Why the interest in whether a number is irrational or not? Is it just a researcher's fun pastime or does it tell us something useful?

                                            From the article: Even though the numbers that feature in mathematics research are, by definition, not random, mathematicians believe most of them should be irrational too.

                                            So is there some kind of validation happening where we are meant to be suspicious of numbers that aren't irrational?

                                            • yen223 4 hours ago

                                              The interesting thing to me is how poorly-understood irrationality is.

                                              Despite it being relatively common knowledge nowadays that pi is irrational, we've only proven that pi is irrational in the past 300 years or so. And the proof is not simple (at least to me)

                                              As the article states, we didn't have a general purpose "plug this number in and it'll spit out whether the number is rational or not" formula. The irrationality proofs that we do have tend to bespoke to the structure of the number itself. That's why this research is exciting.

                                              • sunshowers 8 hours ago

                                                These things are useless for centuries until they suddenly underpin all of modern society.

                                                • treyd 10 hours ago

                                                  The interesting thing about irrational numbers is that they can't be constructed from a finite number of symbols from basic algebra. This is especially interesting when they have relationships with other irrational numbers, like the unexpected relationship between pi and e (and i) demonstrated in Euler's formula.

                                                  • erehweb 10 hours ago

                                                    I think you may be thinking of transcendental numbers, which are a subset of irrational numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_number

                                                    • treyd 10 hours ago

                                                      Ah I'm mixing up my terms, you're right.

                                                    • nh23423fefe 10 hours ago

                                                      Constructed is the wrong word. sqrt(2) is constructible and irrational

                                                      • crabbone 10 hours ago

                                                        OP said constructed from finite number of symbols from basic algebra. There's no finite construction of sqrt(2) using addition and multiplication.

                                                        • LPisGood 8 hours ago

                                                          I feel like you mean basic arithmetic, not basic algebra.

                                                          • aidenn0 9 hours ago

                                                            Surely exponentiation is basic algebra? And sqrt(2) is trivially constructable from exponentiation.

                                                          • jjtheblunt 10 hours ago

                                                            what's the right word?

                                                        • octachron 6 hours ago

                                                          Mathematicians are more interested in the gap in our proof framework.

                                                          Like stated in the articles, many "interesting" constants appearing in mathematics feels like obviously irrational. However, proofs that they are irrational have been eluding mathematicians for centuries.

                                                          This contrast is seen as a sign that we may be just missing the right mathematical insights. And if we find this insight, we might be able to adapt it to unlock other open problems in mathematics (or computer science?).

                                                          This is one of these cases where the path (the new proof framework) is expected to be much more interesting than the initial destination (the fact that yes the Euler constant is irrational, of course).

                                                          • alpple 5 hours ago

                                                            Imagine you're a character in a Lord of the Rings novel. And math is the imaginary landscape that you are going on an adventure through. When a number is irrational, it is not easy to work with compared to natural numbers. So they're marking the map as a hard pass in the mountain ridge that is on your journey, assuming you want to explore that world.

                                                            • CassianAI 10 hours ago

                                                              Practically there's uses in areas like cryptography and simulation where Pseudo-random number generators (PRNGs) are used. If the numbers aren't irrational then there may be flaws in the assumptions being used.

                                                              Beyond direct application, knowing a number is irrational can be a form of validation for theoretical modelling. If a number arising in a model turns out to be rational, it could mean an unexpected simplicity or symmetry, which is worth exploring further. Conversely, irrationality is often expected in complex systems and may confirm the soundness of a mathematical construct or physical model. I guess a good example of that is the relationship of light spectra and Planks constant.

                                                              • wat10000 10 hours ago

                                                                How could it be relevant to cryptography/simulation? Short of a symbolic algebra system, all numbers on a computer are rational. Pi is irrational but M_PI is rational. How can a PRNG be based on an assumption of irrationality when it has no access to irrational numbers?

                                                                • AlotOfReading 9 hours ago

                                                                  You can make PRNGs based on approximations to (disjunctive) irrational numbers, and the irrationality of the number being approximated is important to its quality.

                                                                  I'm not aware of any widespread real-world PRNGs constructed this way because they're less efficient than traditional PRNGs. It's mostly a mathematical trick to be used in proofs and thought experiments.

                                                                  I suspect they're referring to the more common practice of taking the first N digits of a well known number like Pi or e that happens to be irrational as a magic constant of known provenance. 1245678 is another common one though, which obviously isn't irrational.

                                                                  • CassianAI 7 hours ago

                                                                    Agreed re approximating and use of constants. Admittedly, I haven’t looked into PRNGs much since my numerical analysis college days! On simulation I did once do some work with Monte Carlo using quasi-random sequences (e.g Sobol), which can provide better coverage than pure randomness for certain problems.

                                                              • crabbone 10 hours ago

                                                                Rational numbers are a lot more useful than irrational. Eg. everything that happens in digital computers is rational. If you need a measuring tool, the scale is going to be rational.

                                                                Irrational numbers, in practice, cause lack of precision. So, for example, if you draw a square 1m x 1m, its diagonal isn't sqrt(2)m. It's some rational number because that square is made of some discrete elements that you can count, and so is its diagonal. But, upfront, you won't be able to tell what exactly that number is going to be.

                                                                Another way to look at what irrational numbers are is to say that they sort of don't really exist, they are like limits, or some ideals that cannot be reached because you'd need to spend infinity to reach that exact number when counting, measuring etc.

                                                                So, again, from a practical point of view, and especially in fields that like to measure things or build precise things, you want numbers to be rational, and, preferably with "small" denominators. On the other hand, irrational numbers give rise to all sorts of bizarre properties because they aren't usually considered as a point on a number line, but more of a process that describes some interesting behavior, sequences, infinite sums, recurrences etc. So, in practical terms, you aren't interested in the number itself, but rather in the process through which it is obtained.

                                                                * * *

                                                                Also, worth noting that there's a larger group that includes rationals, the algebraic numbers, which also includes some irrational numbers (eg. sqrt(2) is algebraic, but not rational). Algebraic numbers are numbers that can be expressed as roots of quadratic or higher (but finite) power equations.

                                                                These, perhaps, capture more of the "useful" numbers that we operate on in everyday life in terms of measuring or counting things. And the practical use of these numbers is that they can be "compactly" written / stored, so it's easy to operate on them and they have all kinds of desirable mathematical properties like all kinds of closures etc.

                                                                Algebraic numbers are also useful because any computable function has a polynomial that coincides with it at every point. Which means that with these numbers you can, in principle, model every algorithm imaginable. That seems pretty valuable :)

                                                                • tim-kt 10 hours ago

                                                                  > Another way to look at what irrational numbers are is to say that they sort of don't really exist, they are like limits, or some ideals that cannot be reached because you'd need to spend infinity to reach that exact number when counting, measuring etc.

                                                                  Depending on your definition of "existence", rational numbers (or any numbers) don't exist either.

                                                                  • crabbone 10 hours ago

                                                                    I think it's kind of obvious what my definition of existence could be from the answer above: if it's possible to count up to that number in finite time, that number exists. By counting I mean a physical process that requires discrete non-zero intervals between counts. And you don't have to count in integers, you can count in fractions, not necessarily equal at each step: the only requirement is that the element used for counting exists (in terms of this definition) and that you are able to accomplish counting in finite time.

                                                                    To me, this pretty much captures what people understand the numbers to be used for outside of college math (so no transfinite, cardinals etc.)

                                                                    • sunshowers 8 hours ago

                                                                      Do you mean the computable numbers? (there's an algorithm to compute them to arbitrary precision)

                                                                      The irrational numbers used outside of college math, like pi or e or sqrt(2), are computable, though almost all are not.

                                                                      You can do a lot of productive math using just computable numbers since they form a real closed field [1]. I believe they're a little harder to work with though.

                                                                      [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_closed_field

                                                                      • tim-kt 9 hours ago

                                                                        That sounds plausible. I think that definition is equivalent to a number being rational.

                                                                        > To me, this pretty much captures what people understand the numbers to be used for outside of college math (so no transfinite, cardinals etc.)

                                                                        I'm in my fourth year of mathematics right now. I guess I'm not in the target group of articles such as these :P

                                                                      • LPisGood 8 hours ago

                                                                        “God created the natural numbers, all else is the work of man.”

                                                                  • thaumasiotes 10 hours ago

                                                                    > When mathematicians do succeed in proving a number’s irrationality, the core of their proof usually relies on one basic property of rational numbers: They don’t like to come near each other.

                                                                    This property of the minimum distance between two rational numbers is what the ruler function* relies on to be continuous at all irrational numbers while being discontinuous at all rationals.

                                                                    * When x is irrational, f(x) = 0; otherwise, when p and q are integers, f(p/q) = gcd(p,q)/q. Note that this leaves f(0) undefined, which is fine for the result of being discontinuous at rationals. You could define f(0) to be any value other than 0. The function is traditionally defined over the open interval (0, 1), which avoids the issue.

                                                                    • DerekL 8 hours ago

                                                                      Actually, f(0) is well-defined. If q is positive, then gcd(0,q) = q, so f(0) = 1.

                                                                      • thaumasiotes 8 hours ago

                                                                        And when q is negative? Don't we have 1 = 3/3 = f(0/3) = f(0/-3) = 3/-3 = -1?

                                                                        This same problem will occur everywhere negative, though. I wasn't thinking about it; I was just being sloppy.

                                                                    • hn_throwaway_99 10 hours ago

                                                                      Perhaps tangential, but as a non mathematician, I'm very impressed by the writing in Quanta Magazine. It's very understandable to me as a layperson without being too "dumbed down". There was an article in Quanta about the continuum hypothesis that hit the HN front page yesterday that I also thought was very well written and clear. So kudos to the authors, as explaining complicated topics in understandable language is a tough skill.

                                                                      • sunshowers 8 hours ago

                                                                        Quanta tends to be quite good. From the intro, I was wondering if they'd define zeta(3) or if they'd just leave it as some mysterious mathematical object. But they did define zeta(3) thankfully :)

                                                                      • dr_dshiv 8 hours ago

                                                                        Why do they always gotta throw the Pythagoreans under the bus?

                                                                        “ Two and a half millennia ago, the Pythagoreans held as a core belief that every number is the ratio of two whole numbers. They were shocked when a member of their school proved that the square root of 2 is not. Legend has it that as punishment, the offender was drowned.”

                                                                        Not only is this story ahistorical, it is obviously wrong if you have developed the Pythagorean theorem.

                                                                        • DoctorOetker 7 hours ago

                                                                          A person who is born rich can proclaim it is easy to be rich.

                                                                          A person who has been educated with intellectual richess, for example having been shown the proof of irrationality of sqrt(2), can similarily think this observation is obvious.

                                                                          The Pythagoreans were a semi-secretive cult. It is not because you know a theorem that you automatically know all future proofs that apply this theorem as a step.

                                                                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippasus

                                                                          We don't know if it happened or didn't happen.

                                                                          • dr_dshiv 7 hours ago

                                                                            Oh stop. If you have the theorem how would you not test it with sides = 1.

                                                                            Of course we know it didn’t happen. The ancient stories of Hippasus don’t have anything to do with this libel. As is conveniently mentioned in the Wikipedia article you posted.

                                                                            The Pythagoreans were absolutely incredible — and yet this is the only story people throw around. It’s just laziness.

                                                                            • wat10000 5 hours ago

                                                                              So you test it with sides = 1. Result: hypotenuse is some number n where n*n = 2.

                                                                              So far so good. How does this lead you to the obvious conclusion that n is irrational?

                                                                              (I’m familiar with the standard proof that it is, but that’s not something that just naturally falls out of this.)

                                                                              • DoctorOetker 5 hours ago

                                                                                I am certainly open to the idea that

                                                                                > Of course we know it didn’t happen. The ancient stories of Hippasus don’t have anything to do with this libel. As is conveniently mentioned in the Wikipedia article you posted.

                                                                                I reread it BEFORE posting my initial comment.

                                                                                Can you point me to where ON THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE this story was conclusively debunked?

                                                                                • AlotOfReading 6 hours ago

                                                                                  They probably didn't have the modern form we use where plugging in different values like 1 is a natural and obvious thing to do. Regardless, they were a weird religious cult. They could have just regarded numbers that didn't produce rational numbers as unnatural and not something that was going to occur in the actual functioning of the world.

                                                                              • Sniffnoy 6 hours ago

                                                                                How is this story obviously wrong if you've developed the Pythagorean theorem? The Pythagorean theorem has nothing to do with rationality. If you think the irrationality of sqrt(2) follows easily from the Pythagorean theorem, then by all means, please demonstrate!

                                                                                (These days the irrationality of sqrt(2) is obvious due to unique prime factorization, but the ancient Greeks didn't have that concept!)

                                                                              • jncfhnb 7 hours ago

                                                                                > If you pick a point along the number line at random, it’s almost guaranteed to be irrational.

                                                                                I’m having a hard time grasping this one. Feels like the coastline paradox on a straight line of a known length.

                                                                                Are irrational numbers even on a number line? Isn’t it definitionally impossible to pick it as a “point along the line”?

                                                                                • IanKerr 6 hours ago

                                                                                  >Are irrational numbers even on a number line?

                                                                                  Yes, e is between 2 and 3 and Pi is between 3 and 4. There are geometrical lengths corresponding to each number.

                                                                                  >Isn’t it definitionally impossible to pick it as a “point along the line”?

                                                                                  No, it's mathematically possible to have a random process which picks a random real between 0 and n, with equal probability. Imagine it akin to throwing a dart at a line and picking the point it lands on as the number. Since there are only countably many rationals and uncountably many irrationals (i.e. not just infinitely more, but so many that you could never pair off the rationals with the irrationals, there are just too many) on any such length of the real line, chances are the number you end up with is overwhelmingly likely to be irrational.

                                                                                  • jncfhnb an hour ago

                                                                                    I’m struggling to understand how a thrown dart could land on an irrational number. It seems definitionally that any physically realized outcome must pertain to a rational number because it is impossible to physically measure one at any level of precision.

                                                                                    It is possible to write a random process that returns 5 or pi with 50/50 odds so this isn’t a very compelling argument that it’s possible. I don’t feel the semantics of picking a random point along a number line is gg solved just by appealing to the existence of uncountably infinite irrationals.

                                                                                    By most people’s definitions of random points along the number line, including the dart throw, it seems to me the probability of getting an irrational is 0.

                                                                                    Invoking the number of possible outcomes has bad feeling implications. For example if your set is 1 2 3 pi 4, then the probability of getting an outcome in [3,4) is higher than [2,3) and that seems like it’s breaking the intuition of what the line represents. Like as a stupid example say we only include the irrational numbers between 9 and 10 and pick a random point between 1 and 10. If the random method uniformly sampled a point along the line by distance we would suggest a 90% chance of getting a rational number <= 9 and a 10% chance of getting an irrational number above 9.

                                                                                    But if we sample by naive odds you’d probably claim there’s a near 100% chance of getting an irrational number above 9 because there’s an uncountable infinity up there.

                                                                                    That seems dumb.

                                                                                    • wat10000 5 hours ago

                                                                                      And it’s not “overwhelmingly likely” as in there’s a 99% chance or whatever. If you choose a random point on the line, the probability of choosing a rational is zero.

                                                                                      • IanKerr 5 hours ago

                                                                                        Yep, exactly. I glossed over that detail a bit because explaining how a meagre set has a truly zero probability of being picked, while technically still being a possible result of a random process, is a bit messy to wrap your head around colloquially.