Diploid said:

I tried, but none of them knew how to program a computer.

---

Is that geek speak for blowjob?

Diploid said:

Otherwise, the previous explanations revolving around orders of magnitude sufficiently explain the other situations you just listed.

If that were true, it would be seen in random numbers, but it's not. Yet it's seen in measured generally random numbers like river lengths or the lengths of files on a hard drive.

---

It is seen in random numbers, as long as you restrict them to the proper interval.  If you take random numbers between 0 and 1999 you will see it.  If you take them between 0 and 9999 you will not.  The same goes for measured quantities.  If you measure them such that they fall on an interval like 0 to 1999 you will see it, if you measure them such that they fall on an interval between 0 and 9999 you will not.

Note that generally, we use units such that measured numbers hover around an order of magnitude.  We generally take random numbers to span an entire order of magnitude. 


(Also, I wonder if you know what the logical fallacy is when a data set is presented as evidence, then that same data set is used to negate the claim prompting the claimant to then dismiss the data set as too small and not indicitive... ???  )

Quote:

It's called a Yo-YoMamaism.

---

?

Diploid said:

I don't think that's the case. The entire premise of the Benford Law is that that is not the case. But we'll see what my analysis turns up.

---

While we're waiting can I ask an unrelated math question?

Quote from the last scene of the final episode of Battle Star Galactica.

"Law of averages. Mathematics. Let a complex system repeat itself long enough, eventually something surprising might occur. "

Is that true?

FocusHawaii said:

Well, the mathematical proof that this holds might be much, much more complex but it may be intuitively understandable with the above.

The really amazing part to me is that something can be infinitely large yet somehow smaller than something also infinite in size.

---

Diploid said:

Now, notice three things.

1. This list is infinitely long since there are infinitely many Naturals.

2. If you consider the digits in diagonal (), then the string of them itself is an Irrational Real number. You can write it like this 0.3231512... and so on to infinity because the list is infinitely long.

3. And if you add  1 to each of those digits in the diagonal (), you get the following 0.4342623. All I've done is take the Irrational from #2 above and added  1 to each numeral to get a new Irrational.

Now think about the consequences here. There are two possibilities.

A. Our new Irrational (from #3 above) can NEVER appear in our list.

or

B. If we insert our new Irrational (from #3 above) into our list, then we can construct ANOTHER irrational by the diagonal () technique that is not in the list. And if we insert THAT ONE, then we can find yet ANOTHER one by the diagonal () technique that is not in the list. And so on ad infinitum.

No matter how many of these diagonal () Irrationals we find and add to the list, there will ALWAYS be another one we can find by the same method that is not in the list.

That is to say, at the end of the list, we can still find one more that is not in the list.

---

Quote:

Code:

---

Natural   >>>   Some random Real

  0       >>>    0.(3)913228
  1       >>>    0.2(2)19242
  2       >>>    0.35(3)4238
  3       >>>    0.437(1)186
  4       >>>    0.5813(5)63
  5       >>>    0.05267(1)9
  6       >>>    0.567728(2)

---

---

Cups said:

Diploid said:

I don't think that's the case. The entire premise of the Benford Law is that that is not the case. But we'll see what my analysis turns up.

---

While we're waiting can I ask an unrelated math question?

Quote from the last scene of the final episode of Battle Star Galactica.

"Law of averages. Mathematics. Let a complex system repeat itself long enough, eventually something surprising might occur. "

Is that true?

---