"Phil Carmody" <email@example.com> wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > "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?
Neither. And yeah, I'm "mathematically naive", which is why I posted the Q. You, however, are an elitist asshole, who I'm sure was just steps away from solving FLT, right? -- EA
> > 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 /.