it’s not a good example because you’ve only changed the symbolic representation and not the numerical value. the op’s question is identical when you convert to binary. thir is not a counterexample and does not prove anything.
Please read it all again. They didn’t rely on the conversion. It’s just a convenient way to create a counterexample.
Anyway, here’s a simple equivalent. Let’s consider a number like pi except that wherever pi has a 9, this new number has a 1. This new number is infinite and doesn’t repeat. So it also answers the original question.
“please consider a number that isnt pi” so not relevant, gotcha. it does not answer the original question, this new number is not normal, sure, but that has no bearing on if pi is normal.
It’s misunderstanding the question even if unintentionally.
Clearer: Since Pi is infinite and non-repeating, would that mean any finite sequence of non-repeating digits from 0-9 should appear somewhere in Pi in base 10?
They somehow interpreted it as Does any possible string of infinite non-repeating digits contain every possible finite sequence of non repeating digits?
It’s like if I ask “since the dictionary contains every word that means it contains every letter right?” And someone answers, actually you’ll find if you translate it to Japanese and only use kanji it actually doesn’t contain these letters. It fundamentally isn’t what I’m asking, and yes, you can argue I didn’t say IN ENGLISH, but just like the pi question, I feel like it’s pretty intuitive that I wasn’t referring to non English letters in the question.
Since Pi is infinite and non-repeating, would that mean any finite sequence of non-repeating digits from 0-9 should appear somewhere in Pi in base 10?
…and this…
Does any possible string of infinite non-repeating digits contain every possible finite sequence of non repeating digits?
are equivalent statements.
The phrase “since X, would that mean Y” is the same as asking “is X a sufficient condition for Y”. Providing ANY example of X WITHOUT Y is a counter-example which proves X is NOT a sufficient condition.
The 1.010010001… example is literally one that is taught in classes to disprove OPs exact hypothesis. This isn’t a discussion where we’re both offering different perspectives and working towards a truth we don’t both see, thus is a discussion where you’re factually wrong and I’m trying to help you learn why lol.
Is the 1.0010101 just another sequence with similar properties? And this sequence with similar properties just behaves differently than pi.
Others mentioned a zoo and a penguin.
If you say that a zoo will contain a penguin, and then take one that doesn’t, then obviously it will not contain a penguin.
If you take a sequence that only consists of 0 and 1 and it doesn’t contain a 2, then it obviously won’t.
But I find the example confusing to take pi, transform it and then say “yeah, this transformed pi doesn’t have it anymore, so obviously pi doesn’t”
If I take all the 2s out of pi, then it will obviously not contain any 2 anymore, but it will also not be really be pi anymore, but just another sequence of infinite length and non repeating.
So, while it is true that the two properties do not necessarily lead to this behavior. The example of transforming pi to something is more confusing than helping.
The original question was not exactly about pi in base ten. It was about infinite non-repeating numbers. The comment answered the question by providing a counterexample to the proffered claim. It was perfectly good math.
You have switched focus to a different question. And that is fine, but please recognize that you have done so. See other comment threads for more information about pi itself.
The explanation is misdirecting because yes they’re removing the penguins from the zoo. But they also interpreted the question as to if the zoo had infinite non-repeating exhibits whether it would NECESSARILY contain penguins. So all they had to show was that the penguins weren’t necessary.
By tying the example to pi they seemed to be trying to show something about pi. I don’t think that was the intention.
Isnt this a stupid example though, because obviously if you remove all penguins from the zoo, you’re not going to see any penguins
Its not stupid. To disprove a claim that states “All X have Y” then you only need ONE example. So, as pick a really obvious example.
it’s not a good example because you’ve only changed the symbolic representation and not the numerical value. the op’s question is identical when you convert to binary. thir is not a counterexample and does not prove anything.
They didn’t convert anything to anything, and the 1.010010001… number isn’t binary
then it’s not relevant to the question as it is not pi.
Please read it all again. They didn’t rely on the conversion. It’s just a convenient way to create a counterexample.
Anyway, here’s a simple equivalent. Let’s consider a number like pi except that wherever pi has a 9, this new number has a 1. This new number is infinite and doesn’t repeat. So it also answers the original question.
“please consider a number that isnt pi” so not relevant, gotcha. it does not answer the original question, this new number is not normal, sure, but that has no bearing on if pi is normal.
OK, fine. Imagine that in pi after the quadrillionth digit, all 1s are replaced with 9. It still holds
It’s misunderstanding the question even if unintentionally.
Clearer: Since Pi is infinite and non-repeating, would that mean any finite sequence of non-repeating digits from 0-9 should appear somewhere in Pi in base 10?
They somehow interpreted it as Does any possible string of infinite non-repeating digits contain every possible finite sequence of non repeating digits?
It’s like if I ask “since the dictionary contains every word that means it contains every letter right?” And someone answers, actually you’ll find if you translate it to Japanese and only use kanji it actually doesn’t contain these letters. It fundamentally isn’t what I’m asking, and yes, you can argue I didn’t say IN ENGLISH, but just like the pi question, I feel like it’s pretty intuitive that I wasn’t referring to non English letters in the question.
Let’s abstract this.
S = an arbitrary string of numbers
X = is infinite
Y = is non-repeating
Z = contains every possible sequence of finite digits
Now your statements become:
In terms of formal logic, this…
…and this…
are equivalent statements.
The phrase “since X, would that mean Y” is the same as asking “is X a sufficient condition for Y”. Providing ANY example of X WITHOUT Y is a counter-example which proves X is NOT a sufficient condition.
The 1.010010001… example is literally one that is taught in classes to disprove OPs exact hypothesis. This isn’t a discussion where we’re both offering different perspectives and working towards a truth we don’t both see, thus is a discussion where you’re factually wrong and I’m trying to help you learn why lol.
Is the 1.0010101 just another sequence with similar properties? And this sequence with similar properties just behaves differently than pi.
Others mentioned a zoo and a penguin. If you say that a zoo will contain a penguin, and then take one that doesn’t, then obviously it will not contain a penguin. If you take a sequence that only consists of 0 and 1 and it doesn’t contain a 2, then it obviously won’t.
But I find the example confusing to take pi, transform it and then say “yeah, this transformed pi doesn’t have it anymore, so obviously pi doesn’t” If I take all the 2s out of pi, then it will obviously not contain any 2 anymore, but it will also not be really be pi anymore, but just another sequence of infinite length and non repeating.
So, while it is true that the two properties do not necessarily lead to this behavior. The example of transforming pi to something is more confusing than helping.
We need to start teaching formal logic in grade schools I’m going insane.
The original question was not exactly about pi in base ten. It was about infinite non-repeating numbers. The comment answered the question by providing a counterexample to the proffered claim. It was perfectly good math.
You have switched focus to a different question. And that is fine, but please recognize that you have done so. See other comment threads for more information about pi itself.
The explanation is misdirecting because yes they’re removing the penguins from the zoo. But they also interpreted the question as to if the zoo had infinite non-repeating exhibits whether it would NECESSARILY contain penguins. So all they had to show was that the penguins weren’t necessary.
By tying the example to pi they seemed to be trying to show something about pi. I don’t think that was the intention.
i just figured using pi was an easy way to acquire a known irrational number, not trying to make any special point about it.