3 ms·
Better, but irrational numbers can have a predictable pattern like "0.110100100010000" ( E.g "0.1 10 100 1000 10000" )
by sirk390 3y ago
Better, but irrational numbers can have a predictable pattern like "0.110100100010000" ( E.g "0.1 10 100 1000 10000" )
- xigoi 3y agoI'd argue that every computable number has “a predictable pattern” in its digits.
- eru 3y agoI guess it depends. A cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator lets me pump out a stream of digits that's certainly computable, but unless you know my private key, you won't be able to predict it. (Finding out the private key from the stream is 'computable', because the definition of computable is comfortable with running exponentially long brute force searches. But that's why 'computable' is not a useful definition in practice. You want something that captures 'tractable', not just 'possible on a Turing machine at all'.)
- raincole 3y agoIt a quite tautology. How do you define "predictability"? The most intuitive answer is just computability.
- kzrdude 3y agoThat simple sequence, 1, 10, 100 etc, the digit is at least computable in O(1) time which is maybe a good way to look at predictability. It's a simple rule and no effort similar to computing every digit before it is required.
- matvore 3y agoIf you store the number of zeros as value z, computing z+1 is O(log n) in the long run for unbounded values of z.
- matvore 3y agoIf you define predictable as computable with finite memory, it is correct. If you have finite memory, you have a finite number of states and will eventually return to a previous state. In your example, you eventually will run out of memory to track the number of consecutive zeros.