Asklemmy

44183 readers

1597 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

226

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

146 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

[–] AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 day ago

Man, you're giving me flashbacks to real analysis. Shit is weird. Like the set of all integers is the same size as the set of all positive integers. The set of all fractions, including whole numbers, aka integers, is the same size as the set of all integers. The set of all real numbers (all numbers including factions and irrational numbers like pi) is the same size as the set of all real numbers between 0 and 1. The proofs make perfect sense, but the conclusions are maddening.