> To support your argument you should at least show that you've formed a > new sequence of digits.
I'll explain it simply then. The first digit of the created number differs from the first digit of the first number in the list. The second digit differs from the second digit of the second number in the list.
In general, digit n differs from digit n of the nth number in the list.
So for all n, the created number differs from number n. Therefore the created number is not in the list - it is a new sequence of digits.
> > If you actually read my derivation of herc_cant_3 instead of blindly > dismissing it, > you'll see it holds, just like all digits of PI appear in order below > this line, if interpreted > correctly. > > Herc > > ___________________ > > 3 > 31 > 314 > 3141 > ... > >
herc-cant-3 is not a derivation. It's a wild leap of faith. Nothing is proved therein.