Re: By Design (was Re: Numbers)

From: Vernon Jenkins (vernon.jenkins@virgin.net)
Date: Mon Mar 10 2003 - 16:51:36 EST

  • Next message: Vernon Jenkins: "Re: By Design (was Re: Numbers)"

    Dave,

    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.

    Regards,

    Vernon

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
    To: <burgythree@hotmail.com>
    Cc: <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
    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"
    > <burgythree@hotmail.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 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...
    > Dave
    >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Mar 10 2003 - 16:51:56 EST