Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 21 Jan 2006 17:18:11 -0800
Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > > a) 1910484810053706146806749192781911979399520614196634287544
> > >
> > > b) 4121497099935831413222665927505592755799950501152782060571
> > >
> > > c) 4415557863469637694468527889283375102029398103480215402734
>
> Let me reformulate. Are (a) , (b) and/or (c) _part_ of a "fair and
> random"
> sequence of elements from {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} ?
>
> Yes or No is good enough.
Yes, for each of (a), (b), and (c), and for a very generous definition
of "_part_ of". You can verify this from the definititon I gave if you
like.
Cheers - Chas
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- References:
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: cbrown
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: cbrown
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: cbrown
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: cbrown
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: cbrown
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Next by Date: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Next by thread: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Index(es):