Would it be safe to assume that any string...

Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

Thread images: 4

Would it be safe to assume that any string of integers will appear as consecutive digits of pi?

>>

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...

>>

>>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

>>

>>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.

>>

>>

>>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.

>>

>>

>>7790290

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

>>

>>7789936

That isnt actually proven

>>

>>

>>7790378

>1449404144186.jpg

this picture exists

>>

>>7789159

To give an order of magnitude of how safe this claim is, it's safer to assume Eulerâ€“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.

Thread images: 4

Thread DB ID: 434000

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.

This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.

If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's