How far would a person have to search through Pi to get a 50% of getting a million consecutive ones? [closed]












-2












$begingroup$


We know that Pi is a pseudo random sequence that continues indefinitely, so we know that there is a million consecutive ones(or any other combination) contained within Pi somewhere. So then, if we were to start at any random number, say the 978th, how many digits of Pi would you have to search through to get a statistical 50% chance of getting a million ones consecutively? How would increasing it to 50 million ones consecutively change it? How would increasing the chance to 60% or 90% change it?



I've been thinking about for a couple of days, but no clear way to solve it has come to mind. I was thinking about enumerations and powers of ten, but I can't think of a way to incorporate the chance in.



Also, in the first two hundred million digits of Pi, there isn't even nine consecutive ones once! (www.angio.net/pi/). And, is it even containable within 2^64?



EDIT: This question, now that I think about it, would be far more appropriate assuming that each digit was decided by rolling a ten faced dice. I don't want to get into the depths of Pi itself as that is not necessarily my question. Thanks!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$



closed as unclear what you're asking by Did, Claude Leibovici, Cesareo, José Carlos Santos, Brandon Carter Jan 18 at 20:32


Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.














  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The actual term for your ""pseudo random" is normal. It's conjectured that $pi$ is normal, but last I heard it had not been proved. _How do you know there exists a sequence of a million consecutive $1$'s?
    $endgroup$
    – David C. Ullrich
    Jan 17 at 18:08










  • $begingroup$
    @DavidC.Ullrich I don't think many would argue that Pi isn't indefinite, and since each digit is (practically) random, I think it is safe to assume that any combination imaginable(that terminates at a some point) is contained within Pi somewhere. I am very likely wrong about Pi being pseudo random, though.
    $endgroup$
    – somerandompersononline
    Jan 17 at 18:18






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    "I don't think many would argue that Pi isn't indefinite": I would not dispute that, just because I have no idea what it means to say that $pi$ is "indefinite". I didn't say anything about what's "safe to assume" because I don't know the definition of that either. A simpler answer to my question would be just to say no, you don't know that there exists a sequence of a million ones. Everybody things that must be so, but you can't expect anything meaningful about how far you have to look given that we can't even prove the sequence exists. The definition of "practically random" is what?
    $endgroup$
    – David C. Ullrich
    Jan 17 at 18:32








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    "we know that there is a million consecutive ones(or any other combination) contained within Pi somewhere" We most definitely do not know that. Is your question about $pi$ or about the uniform model of random digits?
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Jan 18 at 5:54






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    In the stochastic model of independent and uniformly distributed digits, the mean time to wait before a given number of $n$ digits appear is of the order of $10^n$.
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Jan 18 at 5:56


















-2












$begingroup$


We know that Pi is a pseudo random sequence that continues indefinitely, so we know that there is a million consecutive ones(or any other combination) contained within Pi somewhere. So then, if we were to start at any random number, say the 978th, how many digits of Pi would you have to search through to get a statistical 50% chance of getting a million ones consecutively? How would increasing it to 50 million ones consecutively change it? How would increasing the chance to 60% or 90% change it?



I've been thinking about for a couple of days, but no clear way to solve it has come to mind. I was thinking about enumerations and powers of ten, but I can't think of a way to incorporate the chance in.



Also, in the first two hundred million digits of Pi, there isn't even nine consecutive ones once! (www.angio.net/pi/). And, is it even containable within 2^64?



EDIT: This question, now that I think about it, would be far more appropriate assuming that each digit was decided by rolling a ten faced dice. I don't want to get into the depths of Pi itself as that is not necessarily my question. Thanks!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$



closed as unclear what you're asking by Did, Claude Leibovici, Cesareo, José Carlos Santos, Brandon Carter Jan 18 at 20:32


Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.














  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The actual term for your ""pseudo random" is normal. It's conjectured that $pi$ is normal, but last I heard it had not been proved. _How do you know there exists a sequence of a million consecutive $1$'s?
    $endgroup$
    – David C. Ullrich
    Jan 17 at 18:08










  • $begingroup$
    @DavidC.Ullrich I don't think many would argue that Pi isn't indefinite, and since each digit is (practically) random, I think it is safe to assume that any combination imaginable(that terminates at a some point) is contained within Pi somewhere. I am very likely wrong about Pi being pseudo random, though.
    $endgroup$
    – somerandompersononline
    Jan 17 at 18:18






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    "I don't think many would argue that Pi isn't indefinite": I would not dispute that, just because I have no idea what it means to say that $pi$ is "indefinite". I didn't say anything about what's "safe to assume" because I don't know the definition of that either. A simpler answer to my question would be just to say no, you don't know that there exists a sequence of a million ones. Everybody things that must be so, but you can't expect anything meaningful about how far you have to look given that we can't even prove the sequence exists. The definition of "practically random" is what?
    $endgroup$
    – David C. Ullrich
    Jan 17 at 18:32








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    "we know that there is a million consecutive ones(or any other combination) contained within Pi somewhere" We most definitely do not know that. Is your question about $pi$ or about the uniform model of random digits?
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Jan 18 at 5:54






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    In the stochastic model of independent and uniformly distributed digits, the mean time to wait before a given number of $n$ digits appear is of the order of $10^n$.
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Jan 18 at 5:56
















-2












-2








-2





$begingroup$


We know that Pi is a pseudo random sequence that continues indefinitely, so we know that there is a million consecutive ones(or any other combination) contained within Pi somewhere. So then, if we were to start at any random number, say the 978th, how many digits of Pi would you have to search through to get a statistical 50% chance of getting a million ones consecutively? How would increasing it to 50 million ones consecutively change it? How would increasing the chance to 60% or 90% change it?



I've been thinking about for a couple of days, but no clear way to solve it has come to mind. I was thinking about enumerations and powers of ten, but I can't think of a way to incorporate the chance in.



Also, in the first two hundred million digits of Pi, there isn't even nine consecutive ones once! (www.angio.net/pi/). And, is it even containable within 2^64?



EDIT: This question, now that I think about it, would be far more appropriate assuming that each digit was decided by rolling a ten faced dice. I don't want to get into the depths of Pi itself as that is not necessarily my question. Thanks!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




We know that Pi is a pseudo random sequence that continues indefinitely, so we know that there is a million consecutive ones(or any other combination) contained within Pi somewhere. So then, if we were to start at any random number, say the 978th, how many digits of Pi would you have to search through to get a statistical 50% chance of getting a million ones consecutively? How would increasing it to 50 million ones consecutively change it? How would increasing the chance to 60% or 90% change it?



I've been thinking about for a couple of days, but no clear way to solve it has come to mind. I was thinking about enumerations and powers of ten, but I can't think of a way to incorporate the chance in.



Also, in the first two hundred million digits of Pi, there isn't even nine consecutive ones once! (www.angio.net/pi/). And, is it even containable within 2^64?



EDIT: This question, now that I think about it, would be far more appropriate assuming that each digit was decided by rolling a ten faced dice. I don't want to get into the depths of Pi itself as that is not necessarily my question. Thanks!







pi






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 18 at 5:31







somerandompersononline

















asked Jan 17 at 17:59









somerandompersononlinesomerandompersononline

12




12




closed as unclear what you're asking by Did, Claude Leibovici, Cesareo, José Carlos Santos, Brandon Carter Jan 18 at 20:32


Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.









closed as unclear what you're asking by Did, Claude Leibovici, Cesareo, José Carlos Santos, Brandon Carter Jan 18 at 20:32


Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.










  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The actual term for your ""pseudo random" is normal. It's conjectured that $pi$ is normal, but last I heard it had not been proved. _How do you know there exists a sequence of a million consecutive $1$'s?
    $endgroup$
    – David C. Ullrich
    Jan 17 at 18:08










  • $begingroup$
    @DavidC.Ullrich I don't think many would argue that Pi isn't indefinite, and since each digit is (practically) random, I think it is safe to assume that any combination imaginable(that terminates at a some point) is contained within Pi somewhere. I am very likely wrong about Pi being pseudo random, though.
    $endgroup$
    – somerandompersononline
    Jan 17 at 18:18






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    "I don't think many would argue that Pi isn't indefinite": I would not dispute that, just because I have no idea what it means to say that $pi$ is "indefinite". I didn't say anything about what's "safe to assume" because I don't know the definition of that either. A simpler answer to my question would be just to say no, you don't know that there exists a sequence of a million ones. Everybody things that must be so, but you can't expect anything meaningful about how far you have to look given that we can't even prove the sequence exists. The definition of "practically random" is what?
    $endgroup$
    – David C. Ullrich
    Jan 17 at 18:32








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    "we know that there is a million consecutive ones(or any other combination) contained within Pi somewhere" We most definitely do not know that. Is your question about $pi$ or about the uniform model of random digits?
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Jan 18 at 5:54






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    In the stochastic model of independent and uniformly distributed digits, the mean time to wait before a given number of $n$ digits appear is of the order of $10^n$.
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Jan 18 at 5:56
















  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The actual term for your ""pseudo random" is normal. It's conjectured that $pi$ is normal, but last I heard it had not been proved. _How do you know there exists a sequence of a million consecutive $1$'s?
    $endgroup$
    – David C. Ullrich
    Jan 17 at 18:08










  • $begingroup$
    @DavidC.Ullrich I don't think many would argue that Pi isn't indefinite, and since each digit is (practically) random, I think it is safe to assume that any combination imaginable(that terminates at a some point) is contained within Pi somewhere. I am very likely wrong about Pi being pseudo random, though.
    $endgroup$
    – somerandompersononline
    Jan 17 at 18:18






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    "I don't think many would argue that Pi isn't indefinite": I would not dispute that, just because I have no idea what it means to say that $pi$ is "indefinite". I didn't say anything about what's "safe to assume" because I don't know the definition of that either. A simpler answer to my question would be just to say no, you don't know that there exists a sequence of a million ones. Everybody things that must be so, but you can't expect anything meaningful about how far you have to look given that we can't even prove the sequence exists. The definition of "practically random" is what?
    $endgroup$
    – David C. Ullrich
    Jan 17 at 18:32








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    "we know that there is a million consecutive ones(or any other combination) contained within Pi somewhere" We most definitely do not know that. Is your question about $pi$ or about the uniform model of random digits?
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Jan 18 at 5:54






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    In the stochastic model of independent and uniformly distributed digits, the mean time to wait before a given number of $n$ digits appear is of the order of $10^n$.
    $endgroup$
    – Did
    Jan 18 at 5:56










3




3




$begingroup$
The actual term for your ""pseudo random" is normal. It's conjectured that $pi$ is normal, but last I heard it had not been proved. _How do you know there exists a sequence of a million consecutive $1$'s?
$endgroup$
– David C. Ullrich
Jan 17 at 18:08




$begingroup$
The actual term for your ""pseudo random" is normal. It's conjectured that $pi$ is normal, but last I heard it had not been proved. _How do you know there exists a sequence of a million consecutive $1$'s?
$endgroup$
– David C. Ullrich
Jan 17 at 18:08












$begingroup$
@DavidC.Ullrich I don't think many would argue that Pi isn't indefinite, and since each digit is (practically) random, I think it is safe to assume that any combination imaginable(that terminates at a some point) is contained within Pi somewhere. I am very likely wrong about Pi being pseudo random, though.
$endgroup$
– somerandompersononline
Jan 17 at 18:18




$begingroup$
@DavidC.Ullrich I don't think many would argue that Pi isn't indefinite, and since each digit is (practically) random, I think it is safe to assume that any combination imaginable(that terminates at a some point) is contained within Pi somewhere. I am very likely wrong about Pi being pseudo random, though.
$endgroup$
– somerandompersononline
Jan 17 at 18:18




3




3




$begingroup$
"I don't think many would argue that Pi isn't indefinite": I would not dispute that, just because I have no idea what it means to say that $pi$ is "indefinite". I didn't say anything about what's "safe to assume" because I don't know the definition of that either. A simpler answer to my question would be just to say no, you don't know that there exists a sequence of a million ones. Everybody things that must be so, but you can't expect anything meaningful about how far you have to look given that we can't even prove the sequence exists. The definition of "practically random" is what?
$endgroup$
– David C. Ullrich
Jan 17 at 18:32






$begingroup$
"I don't think many would argue that Pi isn't indefinite": I would not dispute that, just because I have no idea what it means to say that $pi$ is "indefinite". I didn't say anything about what's "safe to assume" because I don't know the definition of that either. A simpler answer to my question would be just to say no, you don't know that there exists a sequence of a million ones. Everybody things that must be so, but you can't expect anything meaningful about how far you have to look given that we can't even prove the sequence exists. The definition of "practically random" is what?
$endgroup$
– David C. Ullrich
Jan 17 at 18:32






2




2




$begingroup$
"we know that there is a million consecutive ones(or any other combination) contained within Pi somewhere" We most definitely do not know that. Is your question about $pi$ or about the uniform model of random digits?
$endgroup$
– Did
Jan 18 at 5:54




$begingroup$
"we know that there is a million consecutive ones(or any other combination) contained within Pi somewhere" We most definitely do not know that. Is your question about $pi$ or about the uniform model of random digits?
$endgroup$
– Did
Jan 18 at 5:54




2




2




$begingroup$
In the stochastic model of independent and uniformly distributed digits, the mean time to wait before a given number of $n$ digits appear is of the order of $10^n$.
$endgroup$
– Did
Jan 18 at 5:56






$begingroup$
In the stochastic model of independent and uniformly distributed digits, the mean time to wait before a given number of $n$ digits appear is of the order of $10^n$.
$endgroup$
– Did
Jan 18 at 5:56












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

At the start of your post you say we know a lot of things; in fact we don't know those things.



Actually various of your assertions are meaningless, at least until you supply a few relevant definitions. But never mind that - the question is obliterated by one fact: No, we do not know that there are a million consecutive ones somewhere in the digits of $pi$. Hence we can't say much about how long you should expect to have to look.



The edit substantially rehabilitates your post: The question of how far we'd need to search a random sequence of digits before finding a million consecutive ones makes perfect sense. Did states that the answer is of the order of $omega=10^{1,000,000}$ - don't hold your breath.



I decided to post an answer when I realized that there is something one can say about all this other than just no, no, no. At the end you express surprise that the first $10^8$ digits do not contain nine consecutive ones. In fact this is not surprising at all. There are $10^9$ nine-digit sequences, and fewer than $10^8$ nine-digit sequences appear in the first $10^8$ digits of $pi$. So if you choose a nine-digit sequence at random the probability that it appears in the first $10^8$ digits of $pi$ is less than $1/10$.



Analyzing things that way it's clear that if it is true that every million-digit sequence appears in the expansion of $pi$ we need to look at at least $omega$ digits to verify this fact by brute force; it seems iikely that the actual number is much larger, "surely" some sequences will not appear until much later than expected.



In particular it's possible that we will never know whether a sequence of a million ones appears. Because we will never build a computer with an $omega$-byte memory; the number of electrons in the observable universe is infinitesimal compared to $10^{1,000,000}$. Hmm. Ok, we could search for that one specific sequence using less than $omega$ bytes of memory. But if we do a billion billion billion petaflops it still takes essentially $omega$ seconds; the universe has got to its "heat death" or "big crunch" long before then.



(That's assuming a "classical" computer. Quantum-mechanical improvement by a factor of $10^{1000}$ makes essentially no difference; $10^{999,000}$ is still big.)






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    The more I think about this question, the more I think it would've been better suited for a much different context -- more on pure randomness than Pi. I really assumed lots of things about Pi. But your answer clearly took time to make, despite the relatively poor quality of my question. Now: Should I delete it, or heavily edit it, so much so that most comments and a fragment of your question would be irrelevant?
    $endgroup$
    – somerandompersononline
    Jan 25 at 4:55


















1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3












$begingroup$

At the start of your post you say we know a lot of things; in fact we don't know those things.



Actually various of your assertions are meaningless, at least until you supply a few relevant definitions. But never mind that - the question is obliterated by one fact: No, we do not know that there are a million consecutive ones somewhere in the digits of $pi$. Hence we can't say much about how long you should expect to have to look.



The edit substantially rehabilitates your post: The question of how far we'd need to search a random sequence of digits before finding a million consecutive ones makes perfect sense. Did states that the answer is of the order of $omega=10^{1,000,000}$ - don't hold your breath.



I decided to post an answer when I realized that there is something one can say about all this other than just no, no, no. At the end you express surprise that the first $10^8$ digits do not contain nine consecutive ones. In fact this is not surprising at all. There are $10^9$ nine-digit sequences, and fewer than $10^8$ nine-digit sequences appear in the first $10^8$ digits of $pi$. So if you choose a nine-digit sequence at random the probability that it appears in the first $10^8$ digits of $pi$ is less than $1/10$.



Analyzing things that way it's clear that if it is true that every million-digit sequence appears in the expansion of $pi$ we need to look at at least $omega$ digits to verify this fact by brute force; it seems iikely that the actual number is much larger, "surely" some sequences will not appear until much later than expected.



In particular it's possible that we will never know whether a sequence of a million ones appears. Because we will never build a computer with an $omega$-byte memory; the number of electrons in the observable universe is infinitesimal compared to $10^{1,000,000}$. Hmm. Ok, we could search for that one specific sequence using less than $omega$ bytes of memory. But if we do a billion billion billion petaflops it still takes essentially $omega$ seconds; the universe has got to its "heat death" or "big crunch" long before then.



(That's assuming a "classical" computer. Quantum-mechanical improvement by a factor of $10^{1000}$ makes essentially no difference; $10^{999,000}$ is still big.)






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    The more I think about this question, the more I think it would've been better suited for a much different context -- more on pure randomness than Pi. I really assumed lots of things about Pi. But your answer clearly took time to make, despite the relatively poor quality of my question. Now: Should I delete it, or heavily edit it, so much so that most comments and a fragment of your question would be irrelevant?
    $endgroup$
    – somerandompersononline
    Jan 25 at 4:55
















3












$begingroup$

At the start of your post you say we know a lot of things; in fact we don't know those things.



Actually various of your assertions are meaningless, at least until you supply a few relevant definitions. But never mind that - the question is obliterated by one fact: No, we do not know that there are a million consecutive ones somewhere in the digits of $pi$. Hence we can't say much about how long you should expect to have to look.



The edit substantially rehabilitates your post: The question of how far we'd need to search a random sequence of digits before finding a million consecutive ones makes perfect sense. Did states that the answer is of the order of $omega=10^{1,000,000}$ - don't hold your breath.



I decided to post an answer when I realized that there is something one can say about all this other than just no, no, no. At the end you express surprise that the first $10^8$ digits do not contain nine consecutive ones. In fact this is not surprising at all. There are $10^9$ nine-digit sequences, and fewer than $10^8$ nine-digit sequences appear in the first $10^8$ digits of $pi$. So if you choose a nine-digit sequence at random the probability that it appears in the first $10^8$ digits of $pi$ is less than $1/10$.



Analyzing things that way it's clear that if it is true that every million-digit sequence appears in the expansion of $pi$ we need to look at at least $omega$ digits to verify this fact by brute force; it seems iikely that the actual number is much larger, "surely" some sequences will not appear until much later than expected.



In particular it's possible that we will never know whether a sequence of a million ones appears. Because we will never build a computer with an $omega$-byte memory; the number of electrons in the observable universe is infinitesimal compared to $10^{1,000,000}$. Hmm. Ok, we could search for that one specific sequence using less than $omega$ bytes of memory. But if we do a billion billion billion petaflops it still takes essentially $omega$ seconds; the universe has got to its "heat death" or "big crunch" long before then.



(That's assuming a "classical" computer. Quantum-mechanical improvement by a factor of $10^{1000}$ makes essentially no difference; $10^{999,000}$ is still big.)






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    The more I think about this question, the more I think it would've been better suited for a much different context -- more on pure randomness than Pi. I really assumed lots of things about Pi. But your answer clearly took time to make, despite the relatively poor quality of my question. Now: Should I delete it, or heavily edit it, so much so that most comments and a fragment of your question would be irrelevant?
    $endgroup$
    – somerandompersononline
    Jan 25 at 4:55














3












3








3





$begingroup$

At the start of your post you say we know a lot of things; in fact we don't know those things.



Actually various of your assertions are meaningless, at least until you supply a few relevant definitions. But never mind that - the question is obliterated by one fact: No, we do not know that there are a million consecutive ones somewhere in the digits of $pi$. Hence we can't say much about how long you should expect to have to look.



The edit substantially rehabilitates your post: The question of how far we'd need to search a random sequence of digits before finding a million consecutive ones makes perfect sense. Did states that the answer is of the order of $omega=10^{1,000,000}$ - don't hold your breath.



I decided to post an answer when I realized that there is something one can say about all this other than just no, no, no. At the end you express surprise that the first $10^8$ digits do not contain nine consecutive ones. In fact this is not surprising at all. There are $10^9$ nine-digit sequences, and fewer than $10^8$ nine-digit sequences appear in the first $10^8$ digits of $pi$. So if you choose a nine-digit sequence at random the probability that it appears in the first $10^8$ digits of $pi$ is less than $1/10$.



Analyzing things that way it's clear that if it is true that every million-digit sequence appears in the expansion of $pi$ we need to look at at least $omega$ digits to verify this fact by brute force; it seems iikely that the actual number is much larger, "surely" some sequences will not appear until much later than expected.



In particular it's possible that we will never know whether a sequence of a million ones appears. Because we will never build a computer with an $omega$-byte memory; the number of electrons in the observable universe is infinitesimal compared to $10^{1,000,000}$. Hmm. Ok, we could search for that one specific sequence using less than $omega$ bytes of memory. But if we do a billion billion billion petaflops it still takes essentially $omega$ seconds; the universe has got to its "heat death" or "big crunch" long before then.



(That's assuming a "classical" computer. Quantum-mechanical improvement by a factor of $10^{1000}$ makes essentially no difference; $10^{999,000}$ is still big.)






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



At the start of your post you say we know a lot of things; in fact we don't know those things.



Actually various of your assertions are meaningless, at least until you supply a few relevant definitions. But never mind that - the question is obliterated by one fact: No, we do not know that there are a million consecutive ones somewhere in the digits of $pi$. Hence we can't say much about how long you should expect to have to look.



The edit substantially rehabilitates your post: The question of how far we'd need to search a random sequence of digits before finding a million consecutive ones makes perfect sense. Did states that the answer is of the order of $omega=10^{1,000,000}$ - don't hold your breath.



I decided to post an answer when I realized that there is something one can say about all this other than just no, no, no. At the end you express surprise that the first $10^8$ digits do not contain nine consecutive ones. In fact this is not surprising at all. There are $10^9$ nine-digit sequences, and fewer than $10^8$ nine-digit sequences appear in the first $10^8$ digits of $pi$. So if you choose a nine-digit sequence at random the probability that it appears in the first $10^8$ digits of $pi$ is less than $1/10$.



Analyzing things that way it's clear that if it is true that every million-digit sequence appears in the expansion of $pi$ we need to look at at least $omega$ digits to verify this fact by brute force; it seems iikely that the actual number is much larger, "surely" some sequences will not appear until much later than expected.



In particular it's possible that we will never know whether a sequence of a million ones appears. Because we will never build a computer with an $omega$-byte memory; the number of electrons in the observable universe is infinitesimal compared to $10^{1,000,000}$. Hmm. Ok, we could search for that one specific sequence using less than $omega$ bytes of memory. But if we do a billion billion billion petaflops it still takes essentially $omega$ seconds; the universe has got to its "heat death" or "big crunch" long before then.



(That's assuming a "classical" computer. Quantum-mechanical improvement by a factor of $10^{1000}$ makes essentially no difference; $10^{999,000}$ is still big.)







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 18 at 15:52

























answered Jan 18 at 14:52









David C. UllrichDavid C. Ullrich

60.7k43994




60.7k43994












  • $begingroup$
    The more I think about this question, the more I think it would've been better suited for a much different context -- more on pure randomness than Pi. I really assumed lots of things about Pi. But your answer clearly took time to make, despite the relatively poor quality of my question. Now: Should I delete it, or heavily edit it, so much so that most comments and a fragment of your question would be irrelevant?
    $endgroup$
    – somerandompersononline
    Jan 25 at 4:55


















  • $begingroup$
    The more I think about this question, the more I think it would've been better suited for a much different context -- more on pure randomness than Pi. I really assumed lots of things about Pi. But your answer clearly took time to make, despite the relatively poor quality of my question. Now: Should I delete it, or heavily edit it, so much so that most comments and a fragment of your question would be irrelevant?
    $endgroup$
    – somerandompersononline
    Jan 25 at 4:55
















$begingroup$
The more I think about this question, the more I think it would've been better suited for a much different context -- more on pure randomness than Pi. I really assumed lots of things about Pi. But your answer clearly took time to make, despite the relatively poor quality of my question. Now: Should I delete it, or heavily edit it, so much so that most comments and a fragment of your question would be irrelevant?
$endgroup$
– somerandompersononline
Jan 25 at 4:55




$begingroup$
The more I think about this question, the more I think it would've been better suited for a much different context -- more on pure randomness than Pi. I really assumed lots of things about Pi. But your answer clearly took time to make, despite the relatively poor quality of my question. Now: Should I delete it, or heavily edit it, so much so that most comments and a fragment of your question would be irrelevant?
$endgroup$
– somerandompersononline
Jan 25 at 4:55



Popular posts from this blog

Mario Kart Wii

What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

Antonio Litta Visconti Arese