You are an idiot. An event, by definition, has non-zero probability. When dealing with infinite samples you must introduce the notion of a metric, also known as "distance". The probability of getting a phone call on any exact instant is zero. It is not zero if the time interval is not an instant but it is finite. In physics, in the real world of events, instances are only defined as a limit from left and right. You cannot equate events and instances. Tell to you PhD crank friend numbers are not events. Numbers are used to measure events. Numbers do not exist as a probability set without a metric. "A world full of cranks"
No, YOU are an idiot and a crank and too unread for this conversation. Crawl back under your rock where you belong. Zero-probability events http://www.statlect.com/subon/probab2.htm For any continuous probability distribution the probability of any single elementary event is 0, yet the event is not logically impossible as an event outside the distribution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_event Since continuous probability functions are defined for an infinite number of points over a continuous interval, the probability at a single point is always zero. http://itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda361.htm
You forgot to add that in the last website they continue with this: "Probabilities are measured over intervals, not single points. " You stupid idiot. You don't know what you read you crank. Where are the references in the first website? That is more like hypothesis than anything else. It is philosophy you idiot and the distinction betwwen conceptual and physical world, if it exists. Read at the end of section 39 of the book "Probability Concepts and Theory for Engineers", By Harry Schwarzlander Any student knows that when dealing with continous random variables we talk about the probability for the "outcomes to fall in a given interval by means of the area under a suitable function." See page 58 of the free book "Grinstead and Snell's Introdunction to Probability". I recommend to you not to talk about things you don't understand. You sound like an idiot and crank of some kind.
You've been proven wrong (see your first idiotic quote below) and your clumsy obfuscations to try to save face only make you look more stupid. If you'd understood the article at the first link you wouldn't "think" the sentence you quoted negates the fact that the probability at a single point is always zero because the width of a point is zero, so ∀ω ∈ Ω, P({ω}) = P([ω,ω]) = ω-ω = 0. Which means my point still stands and you're still an idiot. Your claim that it's "philosophy" and "more like hypothesis than anything else" is pathetic and again shows you're too unread for this conversation. BTW the "reference" for the first site is its author who is a Ph.D. in mathematics. Of course being the ignorant buffoon you are, you probably "think" you know more. Grinstead and Snell is too elementary to cover this in detail but they do say that the probability at a single point is zero on pages 55 and 57 so YOU don't understand your reference. From page 55 -- We saw that in such a model, it is necessary to assign the probability 0 to each outcome. From page 57 -- Then the arguments used in the preceding example show that the probability of any elementary event, consisting of a single outcome, must be zero You're out of your depth and your childish inability to admit you're wrong only makes you look like more of a loser. But don't worry -- you haven't made a fool of yourself in vain because your juvenile stupidity has been entertaining