Would it be safe to assume that any string of integers will appear

no b/c zfc

it's never really "safe to assume"

What da fuck is pi.

Are there any other numbers like pi and e that have yet to be discovered?

XD math is fuckin awesome

Yes. If pi never repeats, then it contains all possible integer strings

>>7789223
good point

>>7789159
It also contains, e sqrt2 and muh dick in binary.

>>7789159
If so, [math]\pi[/math] is a "normal number". It is unknown if [math]\pi[/math] is a normal number, but [math]\pi[/math] is believed to be normal.

In the sense of "it could not matter any less," it's perfectly safe to assume that. Mathematically speaking, no it's not.

>>7789365
No, it's a wrong point.

0.10110111011110111110...

File: Togliatti_surface.png (163KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 800x800px

>>7789383
thats a float not an integer.


for integers though I see your point and you are correct can have different series outside of PI

File: 390px-Limitcycle.svg.png (50KB, 390x315px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 390x315px

>>7789684
Note : that would be getting into the other structures that are similar to PI

(Pi's cousins)
and other artificial constructs for whatever reason.. but eventually and .. normally it will come back to Pi..

>>7789383
That's not what the OP asked.

Pi's digits do indeed contain every possible sequence of integers. All irrational numbers do.

>>7789936
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure
>>7789383
just presented to you a construction of an irrational number which clearly doesn't contain any arbitrary sequence of digits

>>7789159
If you can prove something along those lines, you'll have shown that pi is normal,and you'll have a publishable math paper on your resume. Until then, no, it's not safe to assume that.

>>7789684
>>7789936
Holy shit guys. I gave you a number with an infinitely long non repeating decimal expansion which never even contains a 2. Use your head.

File: 1449404144186.jpg (85KB, 1012x712px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1012x712px

>>7790290
But can can you do it without the axiom of choice?

>>7789936
That isnt actually proven

>>7789936
a) That's not proven for [math]\pi[/math]
b) Not all irrational numbers contain every possible sequence of integers. Obviously. See >>7789383.

>>7790378
>1449404144186.jpg
this picture exists

>>7789159
To give an order of magnitude of how safe this claim is, it's safer to assume Euler–Mascheroni constant is irrational.

>>7789200
You mean transcendental numbers? Yes. There's plenty of them. Actually more than non-transcendental numbers.

>>7790833
You can always count on 4chan to shoehorn the funny cartoon frog and the funny cartoon depressed man into literally everything.