• driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    That’s not how it’s works. Being “infinite” is not enough, the number 1.110100100010000… is “infinite”, without repeating patterns and dosen’t have other digits that 1 or 0.

    • Fubber Nuckin'@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      If it’s infinite without repeating patterns then it just contain all patterns, no? Eh i guess that’s not how that works, is it? Half of all patterns is still infinity.

        • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          However, as the name implies, this is nothing special about pi. Almost all numbers have this property. If anything, it’s the integers that we should be finding weird, like you mean to tell me that every single digit after the decimal point is a zero? No matter how far you go, just zeroes forever?

    • HatchetHaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      to be fair, though, 1 and 0 are just binary representations of values, same as decimal and hexadecimal. within your example, we’d absolutely find the entire works of shakespeare encoded in ascii, unicode, and lcd pixel format with each letter arranged in 3x5 grids.

      • Kogasa@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Still not enough, or at least pi is not known to have this property. You need the number to be “normal” (or a slightly weaker property) which turns out to be hard to prove about most numbers.

          • barsquid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            “Nearly all real numbers are normal (basically no real numbers are not normal), but we’re only aware of a few. This one literally non-computable one for sure. Maybe sqrt(2).”

            Gotta love it.

            • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              We’re so used to dealing with real numbers it’s easy to forget they’re terrible. These puppies are a particularly egregious example I like to point to - functions that preserve addition but literally black out the entire x-y plane when plotted. On rational numbers all additive functions are automatically linear, of the form mx+n. There’s no nice in-between on the reals, either; it’s the “curve” from hell or a line.

              Hot take, but I really hope physics will turn out to work without them.