"Existential Angst" <email@example.com> writes: > "Ben Bacarisse" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message > news:0.e12037e9d116e6e9081a.20121127131802GMT.email@example.com... > > Clark Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > > > >> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:08:17 -0500, Existential Angst wrote: > >> > >>> Would be the digits of e, pi, et al? > >>> If that's the case, no need for fancy pyooter algorithms? > >>> > >>> Inneresting article on pi, randomness, chaos. > >>> http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/pi-random.html > >> > >> Is it not the case that the digits of e, pi et al. can't strictly > >> be random, if it is only because they are highly compressible? I.e. > >> because there small, compact formulas that spit out as many digits as you > >> want in a completely deterministic way? > > > > Absolutely. > > Well, as I responded above, Bailey/Crandall would most certainly disagree.
Nope, you certainly are too mathematically naive to understand what Bailey et al. have said. For example, at the URL above, the word "random" is in quotes, implying not actually random in every sense, and then later it explicitly says "in a certain statistical sense". That's all, in one sense, not in every sense.
Are you a new troll, or an old troll that's just morphed?
Phil -- Regarding TSA regulations: How are four small bottles of liquid different from one large bottle? Because four bottles can hold the components of a binary liquid explosive, whereas one big bottle can't. -- camperdave responding to MacAndrew on /.