Re: "A random real number will be on a computables list to an infinite number of digits"

From: |-|erc (h_at_r.c)
Date: 01/21/05 

Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:10:03 +1000

"Will Twentyman" <wtwentyman@read.my.sig> wrote in > >
> >>>>computables list" True / False / Other
> >>>>
> >>>>Other.
> >>>>You don't know what you mean by "random".
> >>>>What you REALLY mean here is "arbitrary", NOT "random".
> >>>>The point is that you are asking the question about
> >>>>ABSOLUTELY EACH AND EVERY real number. It goes without
> >>>>saying that the numbers that are NOT "random" -- i.e., are
> >>>>computable -- must be on the list of all computable numbers.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>No I don't mean arbitrary. I mean 'non-computable irrational', arbitrary
> >>>has a different interpretation, arbitrary could be 0.10000000..
> >>
> >>Random could also mean 0.1000000... Say what you mean.
> >
> > that's idiotic
> >
> > If its actually ARBITRARY then random is a suitable descriptor.
>
> "Random" suggests there is something to do with probability involved.
> "Arbitrary" means pick any number and work with it, the result will be
> the same regardless of which it is. No probability involved.
>

you do realise every day you post a rule of thumb and every day its out of context?

Herc

Relevant Pages