At 03:55 PM 5/6/05 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
>Yes, but only provided the universe lasts long enough for those digits
to be
>computed!
>-TD
Actually, a few years ago someone discovered an algorithm for the Nth
(hex) digit of Pi
which doesn't require computing all the previous digits. Mind blowing
http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1993/05/msg00213.html
Back in the old days, Tim May would occasionally talk about the
Kolmogorov-Chaitin theories about randomness - Kolmogorov complexity gives
you a lot of deep explanations about this sort of problem. Alas, I never
actually *read* those pape
Yes, but only provided the universe lasts long enough for those digits to be
computed!
-TD
From: John Kelsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Sarad AV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pi: Less Random Than We Thought
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 09:42:09 -040
>From: Sarad AV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: May 5, 2005 8:43 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Pi: Less Random Than We Thought
Well, if it were generated by a random process, we'd expect to see every
n-bit substring in there somewhere,
hi,
--- Gil Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For example, is this sequence
> of bits random:
> 01100100010? How about this one: 00? From
> a true random number
> generator, both are completely possible and equally
> valid.
Random as in the sense guessable and thus posing a
problem
--- Tyler Durden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Let us remember, of course, that the digits of "pi"
> are not random
> whatsoever: they are the digits of pi! "Random is in
> the eye of the
> beholder."
> -TD
Exactly. What an algorithm gives out is always
deterministic. We try to see if there
e
beholder."
I was hoping Cordian would grumpily reply...he's a number theorist or
something.
-TD
From: Sarad AV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pi: Less Random Than We Thought
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 05:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
hi,
If you rem
Sarad writes:
If you remember D.E Knuth's book on Semi-Numerical
Algorithms he shows some annoying subsequences of pi
in it which are far from random.
I don't have Knuth's book handy to look at, but it's not really correct
to speak of a particular sequence or subsequence of digits as being
random o
hi,
If you remember D.E Knuth's book on Semi-Numerical
Algorithms he shows some annoying subsequences of pi
in it which are far from random.
Sarad.
--- cypherpunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This doesn't really make sense. Either the digits
> are random or they
> are not. You can't be a littl
>[1]Autoversicherung writes "Physicists including Purdue's Ephraim
>Fischbach have completed a study [2]comparing the 'randomness' in pi
>to that produced by 30 software random-number generators and one
>chaos-generating physical machine. After conducting several tests,
>they ha
Phillip H. Zakas wrote:
> this is truly interesting...do you have a link to the original 1996
> paper? do you know if anyone has incorporated this into a program?
David Bailey has a brief explanation of the Pi digit algorithm on his
Web page at NERSC...
http://hpcf.nersc.gov/~dhbailey/pi-alg
At 11:34 AM 8/2/2001 -0700, Eric Cordian wrote:
>Interesting article recently posted on the Nature Web site about the
>normality of Pi.
>
>http://www.nature.com/nsu/010802/010802-9.html
>
>"David Bailey of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California and
> Richard Crandall of Reed College
this is truly interesting...do you have a link to the original 1996 paper?
do you know if anyone has incorporated this into a program?
phillip
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eric Cordian
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 2:35 PM
> T
13 matches
Mail list logo
