/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10576537
Pi isn't random

>>10576541
i was referring the the uniform distribution of Pi's digits, a fact that is suspected but not yet proven. what else would "truly random" mean when referring to a specific number?

>>10576546
Random would mean the digits are completely unpredictable. Btw, nobody is spending millions to calculate pi or find really big prime numbers. All you need is like a dozen lines of python, you fuckwit.

>>10576552
>Random would mean the digits are completely unpredictable.
you must be referring to the colloquial definition of random, then. I was talking about random specifically in terms of the uniform distribution, which should've been obvious from the context.
>All you need is like a dozen lines of python, you fuckwit.
are you just pretending? It'll take a long time to find a prime no one else has found before. Especially if you're using something as inefficient as 12 lines of python code.

>>10576569
It takes a long time, not millions of dollars. The only expense is to power the machine while it calculates. Then again, this thread was only an excuse to post anime bullshit.

>>10576578
>It takes a long time, not millions of dollars.
Waiting costs money
>The only expense is to power the machine while it calculates.
Do you know how much it costs to run super computers?
>Then again, this thread was only an excuse to post anime bullshit.
Not really. Why else would I be replying to a retard

TALK TO HAMUMAN

>>10576587
>Waiting costs money
Not even close to millions.
>Do you know how much it costs to run super computers?
Nobody is using supercomputers to calculate pi or find primes.
>Why else would I be replying to a retard
Because you are bored with life and hellbent on proving some gay form of mysticism. Tip: you haven't actually provided any evidence that there is anything mysterious or magical or otherwise interesting about the digits of pi.

Correct me if I am wrong. Your argument is: because we spend loads of money calculating pi or finding primes or whatever (which we don't), then there must be something occultic going on.

>>10576596
>Not even close to millions.
You're going to be waiting millions of years on a PC.
>Nobody is using supercomputers to calculate pi or find primes.
Energy consumption for super computers is the same as regular computers, retard. Consuming a lot of power over a short time vs. consuming little power over a long time takes the same amount of energy. It's just about flop/watt. The only extra cost of super computers is the up front cost, which is offset by the waiting costs without a super computer. And yes, people are using super computers to find primes.

>>10576603
>You're going to be waiting millions of years on a PC.
Funny how we don't wait millions of years for people to find new primes. Another tip: most "new" primes are found by random people donating completely average machines to the search. So the cost is absorbed by those individuals doing the search.
>supercomputers
Okay, but supercomputers aren't used for trivial shit like finding primes. Optimizing the geometry of a nuclear reactor, for example, is something they are actually used for. So the point is moot.

>>10576537
Kek

>>10576610
>most "new" primes are found by random people donating completely average machines to the sea
Combine the cost of everyone's computers and electricity cost and see how much that is
>So the cost is absorbed by those individuals doing the search.
That doesn't mean the cost isn't there
>Okay, but supercomputers aren't used for trivial shit like finding primes. Optimizing the geometry of a nuclear reactor, for example, is something they are actually used for. So the point is moot.
A supercomputer is just a bunch of computers networked together. Those individuals donating their computational resources to find new primes is no different than a supercomputer finding new primes

>>10576614
What's so funny, nigger?

>>10576615
Whatever fag. None of this is even relevant to the central point that your argument is nonesense. There isn't anything special about the digits of primes or irrationals. Prove me wrong. All you have is speculation.

>>10576537
How do you know there is no pattern that ever repeats? You would have to know an infinite number of digits and inspect them in order to say "yep, there is no pattern here". But you can't know an infinite sequence of digits, so you can't inspect it, and so you can't know whether irrational numbers are truly non-periodic.

You can have an indirect proof of it by proving that an irrational cannot be written as a quotient of two integers and by proving that any periodic number can be written as a quotient of two integers, but that relies on a lot of assumptions about numbers that we make in mathematics so I don't think it really amounts to anything much in the real world.

>>10576537
There is no such thing. If there was, it would be known among professional mathematicians/scientists. This topic is >>>/x/ tier.

>>10576621
Whatever, furfag

>>10576596