|
The offending bit stream(s) will never the less appear, just in different locations.
|
|
|
|
|
That would be infringement of IP. Still bad!
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: meaning that it contains ALL finite bit strings.
Since the matter in the universe is finite, or certainly finite in terms of computation, would not attempting to compute the complete value result in consuming all of the matter in the universe?
Which at that point in time should mean it doesn't matter if infringes on published documentation.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Since the matter in the universe is finite,
I really hope that it is. And that time is finite, and will end some time. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of infinites. I am hoping for a gnab gib.
|
|
|
|
|
You can be sure though that the time about which you would need to consider it is finite.
|
|
|
|
|
I beg to differ; the matter in the visible Universe appears to be finite, but we don't know how large the Universe (visible and non-visible) is. There is good evidence that it is much larger than that, and could be infinite in size.
If the universe is only 14 billion years old, how can it be 92 billion light years wide? - YouTube
How far is the edge of the universe? - YouTube
Given that the visible Universe is expanding, your assumption merely places an upper limit on the rate at which the calculation can proceed. The maximum number of bits calculated per second is the energy density of the newly-visible parts of the Universe, multiplied by the newly-visible volume, and divided by the energy required per bit.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Given that the visible Universe is expanding, your assumption merely places an upper limit on the rate at which the calculation can proceed.
The original comment made it clear that the actual outcome was publishing the result and not the calculation itself.
|
|
|
|
|
In theory, when the "big bang" occurred, the gravity was so intense that the light could not escape. (The gravity was more intense then a big black hole.) At some time later, when the gravity subsided, the pieces left that central point and moved out in all directions. Also, the more intense the gravity, the more time shrinks. Items closer to intense gravity will move faster than items much further away. To us, in our time, it may seem like 14 million years. But, much closer to the high gravity source, it would have been a longer time.
|
|
|
|
|
So you are saying that the real creation myth went, "God said, let there be pi!" Hmm. You are making me hungry. 
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: "God said, let there be pi!"
God might equally have said "Let there be all manner of cosines of non-zero algebraic numbers."
And God looked upon all the numbers and saw that they were good. And there was a night, and a day, Aleph-one. 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: God might equally have said ...
They are in pi somewhere, so he only had to make one statement. God being concise and all...
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: God being concise and all...
Uuuhh¨... Well ...
|
|
|
|
|
Not necessarily. The conjecture is that all finite strings may be found somewhere in Pi; infinite strings are not (and cannot) all be included in Pi.
My argument is that assuming we have one infinite string starting at position p1 and another infinite string starting at position p2 > p1, then the second string must be a subset of the first. As not all infinitely long strings can be ordered as substrings, not all infinitely long strings can appear in Pi.
For example, 01(01) repeating is not a substring of 001(001) repeating.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
So God is omniPItent??
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
whoa. didn't see that one coming.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
That's a NO! half the binary numbering system?
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: ... the not-yet-released Pearl Harbor movie ...
Unless they're making another one, that dates this message to May 2001 or earlier. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I never said it was new; I just found it funny (but accurate...)
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
No, but every now and then I sort of miss it. At least a little bit.
|
|
|
|
|
No, but the better jokes have been migrated.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Not according to IEEE 754 :p
|
|
|
|
|
IEEE 754 deals with finite-precision floating-point numbers, so Pi cannot be exactly represented in a manner compatible with it. 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I've studied physics and there, we got methods to get right answers from values with finite precision B)
|
|
|
|
|
Member 9167057 wrote: 've studied physics
By a strange coincidence, so did I. I also studied Numerical Analysis.
The issue here is that Pi cannot be represented to adequate accuracy using IEEE 754 types. This has implications for argument reduction, e.g. for the trigonometrical functions.
If the closest representation of Pi in IEEE 754 is Pi+dPi, the argument reduction for a value x will calculate x' = x - 2 * N * (Pi + dPi), giving a reduced argument that is in error by at least 2 * N * dPi. This can be significant even for small values of N, e.g. around the zeroes of a function. It is possible that not even the sign of the calculated result is correct!
Some mitigations are possible, e.g. representing Pi as a sum of a few parts, but for large N the only fix is to use a highly precise form of Pi.
I enclose a link to an article that discusses this issue in more detail than most people will ever need... https://redirect.cs.umbc.edu/~phatak/645/supl/Ng-ArgReduction.pdf
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
