| 1 |
On 01/11/2014 23:56, David W Noon wrote: |
| 2 |
>> The sequence of digits that make up pi are a random sequence - you |
| 3 |
>> > can analyze the order any way you want and you'll find no inherent |
| 4 |
>> > pattern. |
| 5 |
> Actually, the sequence of digits is most definitely *not* random. If |
| 6 |
> the sequence of digits is written any other way then the value is not |
| 7 |
> Pi. Hence the sequence is unique, not random. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I think what you are grasping for is that the frequency of distinct |
| 10 |
> digits tends to be uniform: 0's occur as often as 1's as often ... as |
| 11 |
> 9's. Note that the "as often as" operator is really approximate for |
| 12 |
> finite sub-sequences, but is asymptotically accurate. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Moreover, this is the same in any number base: the binary |
| 15 |
> representation has 0's occurring as often as 1's; the ternary |
| 16 |
> representation has 0's occurring as often as 1' and as often as 2's; |
| 17 |
> etc., etc. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Such numbers are called "normal". It was a poor choice of name, but |
| 20 |
> we are stuck with it. I would have called them "digit soup" numbers |
| 21 |
> -- an oblique reference to alphabet soup. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
You grasp correctly what I was saying :-) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I'm not formally trained in mathematics so I often get the terminology |
| 27 |
wrong or just don't know the accepted words for a concept. Lucky for me |
| 28 |
though, English is a heavily overloaded language and there's always more |
| 29 |
than one way to communicate something |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 33 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives