Re: Newbie question(s)...
From: Ernst Lippe (ernstl-at-planet-dot-nl_at_ignore.this)
Date: 09/17/03
- Next message: Anton Stiglic: "Re: A stupid text trick - Example of the redundancy of English text"
- Previous message: David A. Scott: "Re: Meganet on Cryptogram again"
- In reply to: Jonathan Baker: "Newbie question(s)..."
- Next in thread: Jonathan Baker: "Re: Newbie question(s)..."
- Reply: Jonathan Baker: "Re: Newbie question(s)..."
- Reply: Jonathan Baker: "Re: Newbie question(s)..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:36:15 +0200
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:13:58 +0000, Jonathan Baker wrote:
> They are good little numbers because there is no way to predict the
> next digit from previous digits...
It is not true that the digits in an irrational numbers are
always hard to predict.
The following number is irrational:
0.101001000100001000001........
but it is very easy to predict the next digit.
greetings,
Ernst Lippe
- Next message: Anton Stiglic: "Re: A stupid text trick - Example of the redundancy of English text"
- Previous message: David A. Scott: "Re: Meganet on Cryptogram again"
- In reply to: Jonathan Baker: "Newbie question(s)..."
- Next in thread: Jonathan Baker: "Re: Newbie question(s)..."
- Reply: Jonathan Baker: "Re: Newbie question(s)..."
- Reply: Jonathan Baker: "Re: Newbie question(s)..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]