Asklemmy

44182 readers

2042 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

225

Since Pi is infinite and non-repeating, would that mean any finite sequence of non-repeating numbers should appear somewhere in Pi? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

145 comments fedilink hide all child comments

How about ANY FINITE SEQUENCE AT ALL?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Sheldan@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

I see that the context is a different one and i also understand formal logic (contrary to what the other comment on my post says)

It's just that if the topic is pi, I find it potentially confusing (and not necessary) to construct a different example which is based on pi (pi in binary and interpreted as base 10) in order to show something, because one might associate this with the original statement.

While this is faulty logic to do so, why not just use an example which doesn't use pi at all in order to eliminate any potential.

I did realize now that part of my post could be Interpreted in a way, that I did follow this faulty logic -> I didn't