Let us just take the numbers, I mean the finite numbers 0, 1, 2, ...
But let us take them all.
Then it can be shown that numbers without an encoding of "Gone with the
wind" are quite exceptional. Almost all natural numbers, written in
any base, has an encoding of "Gone with the wind", and of the complete
work of Feynman too, and the complete archive of the everything-list.
In the land of big numbers those numbers *who don't* are rare and
exceptional.
It is not entirely obvious. There is a proof of this in the Hardy and
Wright Introduction to Number Theory.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0198531710/103-1630254-7840640?
v=glance&n=283155
Bruno
Le 31-mars-06, à 23:34, daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden a écrit :
>
> John,
>
> If I understand what you're asking: A digital recording of "Gone With
> The Wind", say on a CD, is recorded in bits, binary digits, 1's and
> 0's. You can also express pi in binary, it's simply the base-2
> representation of pi, all 1's and 0's, just like the movie recording.
> So you have an infinite sequence of 0's and 1's which is the
> representation of pi in which to search for the finite sequence of the
> movie recording.
>
> Tom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Sent: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 12:59:20 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: Re: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE
>
>
> Tom,
>
> may I humblly ask for an example, HOW you would
> imagine the 'sequence' in pi's infinite variety of
> numbers the connotation for "Gone With The Wind - the
> movie?"
> Just 'per apices', show the kind of sequence included,
> I don't want all the details.
>
> Thank you
>
> John M
>
> --- Daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden wrote:
>
>> Interesting! This reminds me of the old standby
>> example of being able to
>> find any sequence of digits in the digits of pi, and
>> therefore being able to
>> find whole digital "recordings" of "Gone With The
>> Wind" or anything you desire,
>> including your-whole-life-as-you-desire-it-to-be, if
>> you search long enough.
>> ;) But that's the key, in my view. It requires
>> desiring, searching and
>> finding. That requires a person. Similarly, it
>> requires a person to combine
>> addition and multiplication. This is because it
>> requires a person to think of
>> grouping things. This is because it takes a person
>> to define meaning.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> "An equation for me has no meaning unless it
>> expresses a thought of God."
>> Ramanujan
>> "Ask and it will be given to you, seek and you will
>> find, knock and the door
>> will be opened to you." Jesus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Apr 01 2006 - 08:48:41 PST