On 01/11/2014 23:56, David W Noon wrote: >> The sequence of digits that make up pi are a random sequence - you >> > can analyze the order any way you want and you'll find no inherent >> > pattern. > Actually, the sequence of digits is most definitely *not* random. If > the sequence of digits is written any other way then the value is not > Pi. Hence the sequence is unique, not random. > > I think what you are grasping for is that the frequency of distinct > digits tends to be uniform: 0's occur as often as 1's as often ... as > 9's. Note that the "as often as" operator is really approximate for > finite sub-sequences, but is asymptotically accurate. > > Moreover, this is the same in any number base: the binary > representation has 0's occurring as often as 1's; the ternary > representation has 0's occurring as often as 1' and as often as 2's; > etc., etc. > > Such numbers are called "normal". It was a poor choice of name, but > we are stuck with it. I would have called them "digit soup" numbers > -- an oblique reference to alphabet soup. >
You grasp correctly what I was saying :-) I'm not formally trained in mathematics so I often get the terminology wrong or just don't know the accepted words for a concept. Lucky for me though, English is a heavily overloaded language and there's always more than one way to communicate something -- Alan McKinnon [email protected]
