Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Jan 2006 14:16:17 -0800
Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> { ... whatever he likes ... ]
>
> But all of his arguing simply boils down to the following:
>
> - Pi is fair and random AND Pi is not fair and random
Can you explain how you obtained that from this?
>> Is pi a random number by my definition? No, pi is not a sequence of
>> elements from some set..
>>
>> Are the digits of pi a random number by my definition? No, the sequence
>> of digits in the ecimal expansion of pi, taken as a sequence of
>> selections from the set [0..9] is a calculatable sequence, and so it is
>> not random.
- Randy
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- References:
- 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
- From: cbrown
- 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 . 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):
Relevant Pages
|