Imagine a game where at each step, a person is given 10 dollar bills (numbered in the order they are given, starting at 1), and then one bill is removed from the bills that the person has received during the course of the game. Suppose the game goes on for a countably infinite number of steps. How many bills are left afterwards? As you may have already surmised, the answer depends on how the bills are removed.
If the lowest numbered bill is removed each time, then no bills are left. The removal of every bill can be traced to a specific step, so no bill can be identified which could remain in the person's collection. There are other removal patterns that result in total loss as well, but this one is simple.
If the highest numbered bill is removed each time, then there will be an infinite number of bills left, because each of the infinite steps gives the person nine bills which will never be removed. Again, there are other methods to achieve this, but this one is simple.
There are also removal patterns one could specify to end up with any finite number of bills, but it's basically just waiting until the player has the right number of bills and then implementing a pattern of total removal starting at a bill of some specific number. I can give examples later, if they are needed.
What if the removal process is randomized? At step 1, bills 1-10 are given and one of those 10 bills is randomly selected for removal. At step two, bills 11-20 are given, and one of the 19 remaining bills is randomly selected for removal. And so on.
What I'm after is how to figure out what the probability of either no or only a finite number of bills remaining after an infinite number of steps. I know about the Infinite Monkeys Theorem, but that is about a finite string being contained in a countably infinite string and this issue is about a countably infinite string being part of the set of patterns that remove all bills, and that difference seems significant. It seems like I can't just compare the set of possibilities that do and don't have this result because they're both aleph-1 sets, and I have a proof that equinumerous infinite sets of possibilities can't be assumed to just balance out in that way (I don't know if one exists elsewhere, but I got myself to that point).
TBH, I feel like I should be able to work this out, but I'd really appreciate some help here because I'm writing my philosophy MA thesis and this is a minor point, but one I'd really like to leave in if possible. Of course, any assistance given will be cited (we can discuss how you want this to be done). If I work it out on my own (or think I have done so), I'll post a follow up and see what y'all think.
Thanks in advance!