From: Vernon Jenkins (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Mar 10 2003 - 16:56:05 EST
I can do no better than draw your attention to my recent remarks to Dave.
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <email@example.com>
Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: By Design (was Re: Numbers)
> D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:
> > On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 11:55:52 -0700 "John Burgeson"
> > <email@example.com> 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
> > 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
> > a different base. For example, 1/3 in base 7 comes out 0.222...
> Or the first few terms of a series for pi or e.
> George L. Murphy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Mar 10 2003 - 16:56:21 EST