| |||||||||||||
josh's clients aren't stupid, they're smartjosh's clients aren't stupid, they're smartPosted May 11, 2011 6:00 UTC (Wed) by cmccabe (guest, #60281)In reply to: josh's clients aren't stupid, they're smart by cmccabe Parent article: Scale Fail (part 1)
It's digits 99768 through 99838 from the base 10 decimal expansion of pi.
Every digit is completely predetermined, but it's pretty hard to spot if you don't know what you're looking for!
(Log in to post comments)
josh's clients aren't stupid, they're smart Posted May 11, 2011 8:07 UTC (Wed) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]
The only thing that is remarkable is that Google did not find it.
josh's clients aren't stupid, they're smart Posted May 11, 2011 16:56 UTC (Wed) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
So in other words the answer was "No" ?
We suspect (as far as I remember no-one has proved) that all possible sequences of digits occur in Pi. Assuming this is so, the fact that a particular sequence occurs in Pi is not interesting at all.
josh's clients aren't stupid, they're smart Posted May 11, 2011 20:08 UTC (Wed) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
Even if all possible sequences of digits occur in Pi, the fact that a particular sequence occurs at a particular position can be "interesting". If nothing else, it would make for a pretty strange compression algorithm (although probably not a practical one for most input data, given how large the indices are likely to be.)
josh's clients aren't stupid, they're smart Posted May 12, 2011 8:27 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
On the average, the index of where in pi a certain sequence occurs, is as long as the sequence itself, thus the average savings of this compression-scheme is zero.
josh's clients aren't stupid, they're smart Posted May 12, 2011 16:56 UTC (Thu) by fuhchee (subscriber, #40059) [Link]
I'm still missing the "fun" part.
|
|||||||||||||