Would it be safe to assume that any string of integers will appear as consecutive digits of pi?
no b/c zfc
it's never really "safe to assume"
What da fuck is pi.
Are there any other numbers like pi and e that have yet to be discovered?
XD math is fuckin awesome
Yes. If pi never repeats, then it contains all possible integer strings
>>7789223
good point
>>7789159
It also contains, e sqrt2 and muh dick in binary.
>>7789159
If so, [math]\pi[/math] is a "normal number". It is unknown if [math]\pi[/math] is a normal number, but [math]\pi[/math] is believed to be normal.
In the sense of "it could not matter any less," it's perfectly safe to assume that. Mathematically speaking, no it's not.
>>7789365
No, it's a wrong point.
0.10110111011110111110...
>>7789383
thats a float not an integer.
for integers though I see your point and you are correct can have different series outside of PI
>>7789684
Note : that would be getting into the other structures that are similar to PI
(Pi's cousins)
and other artificial constructs for whatever reason.. but eventually and .. normally it will come back to Pi..
>>7789383
That's not what the OP asked.
Pi's digits do indeed contain every possible sequence of integers. All irrational numbers do.
>>7789159
If you can prove something along those lines, you'll have shown that pi is normal,and you'll have a publishable math paper on your resume. Until then, no, it's not safe to assume that.
>>7790290
But can can you do it without the axiom of choice?
>>7789936
That isnt actually proven
>>7790378
>1449404144186.jpg
this picture exists
>>7789159
To give an order of magnitude of how safe this claim is, it's safer to assume Euler–Mascheroni constant is irrational.
>>7789200
You mean transcendental numbers? Yes. There's plenty of them. Actually more than non-transcendental numbers.
>>7790833
You can always count on 4chan to shoehorn the funny cartoon frog and the funny cartoon depressed man into literally everything.
