Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 24 Jan 2006 01:56:21 -0800
Han de Bruijn wrote:
> cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> > What!? How could even you possibly claim this?
> >
> > Can you show me a sense in which I claim, either directly or by
> > inference from from my definition, that Pi is random?
>
> http://groups.google.nl/group/sci.math/msg/9cd70a9cda62066a?hl=nl&
>
LOL. You're joking, right?
A summary of the above link:
Han:
> > > a) 1910484810053706146806749192781911979399520614196634287544
> > > Let me reformulate. [Is] (a)... _part_ of a "fair and
> > > random" sequence of elements from {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} ?
Myself:
> > Yes, for each of (a) <and ...>, and for a very generous definition
> > of "_part_ of". You can verify this from the definititon I gave if you
> > like.
Han :
> (a) is part of the decimal expansion of Pi ;
And from this you deduce I mean that pi meets my definition of a random
sequence?
I assert that "7" is a part of sequence which I consider random.You
assert that "7" is a part of the sequence of digits in "pi". You then
infer that I mean that "pi is a random sequence"?
Really, really, pathetic. I mean, really. C'mon. You're not even
trying, here. A new low; it will be bookmarked.
If I say that "1+1=2" will you argue that? Will say "Chas claims that
1+1=3" just so you don;t have to agree to "1+1=2"?
Cheers - Chas
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- References:
- 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
- From: cbrown
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Next by Date: Re: JSH: Keep it simple
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Next by thread: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|