Almost every number that exists is a normal number, so much so that the set of non-normal numbers has a measure of zero

>almost every number that exists is a normal number, so much so that the set of non-normal numbers has a measure of zero
>yet we haven't found any and most likely never will
Anyone else get autistically sad about this?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champernowne_constant
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitin's_constant
mathoverflow.net/questions/132099/normality-of-chaitins-constant
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>haven't found a normal number yet
[math]\frac{0.1234567890}{1-10^{-10}}[/math]
where is my fields metal?

>0 never occurs after the decimal point
>even if it did, it would only be normal in base 10
Tough luck bud

...

> in every positive integer base b

...

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champernowne_constant

>normal in all bases

>>yet we haven't found any and most likely never will

Chaitin's constant is normal.

Can you give me the digits, boy?

Yeah. But you’ll always finds such numbers to be non computable, which is also very sad.
Infact, any non constructive proof (or anything similar) will make a computer scientist sad.

I still don't get Chaitin's constant. If we can't calculate it, how do we know it's normal? More importantly, how do we know it exists if we don't even know how to calculate it?
If it's just the probability that a randomly-constructed program will halt, which is all I understand from it and all that we seem to know, how come it can't be figured out experimentally and labelled a physical constant? Is it because "not muh true randomness" of something else?

>how do we know it exists
There are plenty of ways to prove something exists without constructing it or even knowing what it "looks" like. In this case it is all about proving that the probability that a randomly constructed program will halt is actually a well defined concept that has to exist.

This is particularly easy when it comes to "proving" a certain number exists. For example, let N be the number of primes smaller than 10^10^200 that have a 3 in their digit representation.

N has to exist, but there is no way you can even start telling what its digits are.

Who are you quoting?

The definition of a normal number.

Sure we have. Chaitin's constant is a normal number user.

Great, now give me the digits.
(In fact, how do we even know it's normal if we don't know its digits?)

Are you some kind of finitist imbecile/Wildberger fan?

I asked you for the digits, and last time I checked, letters can't be digits (in base 10).

>No non-normal numbers
I think 7 is a very weird number
Like it's not even and it's good really gross multiples
Like multiples of 7 feel like they should be prime
And it really doesn't go into much that well
It's a very unassuming number
It makes me nervous

It's the first number like this too
Like 1 is 1 ofc
2 is even 2 is a beautiful number
At least 3 has some 3 6 9 shit going for it like come on
4 is even so immediately disregarded
5 gets all of 10s sloppy seconds so it kinda biggybacks off that
6 is even
7 is not normal
7 is weird
It makes me nervous

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitin's_constant

This is my headcanon.

wow, way to be numeronormartive guys

i have some digits right here for you

user just gave this nice explanation -
still don’t get it?

Prove it

That would contradict pi being normal

That's not a normal number, since the sequence 02 never appears. In a normal number each length-n decimal sequence must appear 1/10^n of the time.

I don’t know how to conclude from the proof of normality of chaitin’s constant that pi is not normal but at least a few Google searches give this - mathoverflow.net/questions/132099/normality-of-chaitins-constant (helps?)

>this one non-computable number is normal
>therefore all computable numbers are non-normal
I don't think that quite works.