From: Vernon Jenkins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Mar 10 2003 - 16:51:36 EST
It is hardly appropriate surely that we should be discussing the perceived
shortcomings of the author. A wider view of the whole picture must rather
cause us to wonder how he could have squeezed so much of numerical interest
into so short a sentence.
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <email@example.com>
Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: By Design (was Re: Numbers)
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 11:55:52 -0700 "John Burgeson"
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Vernon wrote:
> > "But what I think has first to be established, and generally agreed
> > upon, is
> > the vanishingly small probability that these phenomena may be
> > attributed to
> > chance. Are you really that
> > unimpressed by the '10 billion to 1 against' scenario associated
> > with the
> > 'pi / e' affair?"
> > Burgy wrote:
> > In a word, yes.
> Seems to me that there is another consideration that I have not seen
> mentioned. Would the omniscient deity provide a crude approximation to a
> value which he must know to be transcendental? I would certainly be more
> impressed if there were the first sequence of a string of repeating
> decimals: something like 0.3, 0.142857, 0.1, 0.09, ..., or a variant with
> a different base. For example, 1/3 in base 7 comes out 0.222...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Mar 10 2003 - 16:51:56 EST