<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Finding 2013 in pi</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/</link>
	<description>John D. Cook</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 00:05:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: M Salem</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/comment-page-1/#comment-23</link>
		<dc:creator>M Salem</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:05:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=12701#comment-23</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Can you check when will be the second, the third,.. of the occurrence of  &quot;2013&quot;?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can you check when will be the second, the third,.. of the occurrence of  &#8220;2013&#8243;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Hemedinger</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/comment-page-1/#comment-22</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Hemedinger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 19:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=12701#comment-22</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Did you include that bit about &quot;random&quot; and &quot;normal&quot; in the explanation to your daughter?  If you kept her attention with that...good for her!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Did you include that bit about &#8220;random&#8221; and &#8220;normal&#8221; in the explanation to your daughter?  If you kept her attention with that&#8230;good for her!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/comment-page-1/#comment-21</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2013 04:33:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=12701#comment-21</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Kevin

Last time I asked, was told that normal numbers and Kolmogorov complexity are not necessarily related, and basically are independent definitions of randomness. Certainly Pi is a good candidate for and example of it (if only we could prove it&#039;s normal)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Kevin</p>
<p>Last time I asked, was told that normal numbers and Kolmogorov complexity are not necessarily related, and basically are independent definitions of randomness. Certainly Pi is a good candidate for and example of it (if only we could prove it&#8217;s normal)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lens</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/comment-page-1/#comment-20</link>
		<dc:creator>lens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 13:17:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=12701#comment-20</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Low level contribution: /mpmpath/mpmath/, link broken.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Low level contribution: /mpmpath/mpmath/, link broken.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Magnum</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/comment-page-1/#comment-19</link>
		<dc:creator>Magnum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 08:59:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=12701#comment-19</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[100,000 was a pretty good guess for the precision, because the last 4 digit number that occurs in the fractional part of the decimal expansion of π is 6716, starting at 99,846.

&lt;pre&gt;
from mpmath import mp

mp.dps = 100000
s = str(mp.pi)

digits = 4

counts = []
for i in range(0, 10**digits):
    counts.append(0)

new_found = 0
all_found = False
for i in range(2, len(s) - digits + 1):
    d = int(s[i:i + digits])
    counts[d] += 1
    if counts[d] == 1:
        new_found += 1
        if new_found == 10**digits:
            all_found = True
            print(&quot;Last %d digit number in decimal expansion of pi is %s, at position %d&quot; % (digits, d, i - 1))
            break
if not all_found:
    raise &quot;oops, increase precision&quot;
&lt;/pre&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>100,000 was a pretty good guess for the precision, because the last 4 digit number that occurs in the fractional part of the decimal expansion of π is 6716, starting at 99,846.</p>
<pre>
from mpmath import mp

mp.dps = 100000
s = str(mp.pi)

digits = 4

counts = []
for i in range(0, 10**digits):
    counts.append(0)

new_found = 0
all_found = False
for i in range(2, len(s) - digits + 1):
    d = int(s[i:i + digits])
    counts[d] += 1
    if counts[d] == 1:
        new_found += 1
        if new_found == 10**digits:
            all_found = True
            print("Last %d digit number in decimal expansion of pi is %s, at position %d" % (digits, d, i - 1))
            break
if not all_found:
    raise "oops, increase precision"
</pre>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin O'Bryant</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/comment-page-1/#comment-18</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin O'Bryant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 00:20:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=12701#comment-18</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here are some data points regarding the connection between normality and Kolmogorov complexity. The Kolmogorov complexity of x is - more or less - the length of the shortest program that takes input k and returns the k-th binary digit of x). pi is believed to be normal to every base, while it has low Kolmogorov complexity. The 0.a_1a_2... number in my earlier comment is not normal base-10 (but probably is to other bases), and also has low Kolmogorov complexity. Champernowne&#039;s constant is definitely normal base-10,  but likely not to other bases, and has low Kolmogorov complexity. In &quot;Absolutely Abnormal Numbers&quot;, Greg Martin gives a low Kolmogorov complexity number that is not normal to any base. A random sequence of 0&#039;s and 1&#039;s, with 0 twice as likely as 1, considered as the binary expansion of x, will have high Kolmogorov complexity will not be normal.

It does &quot;feel&quot; like there should be a connection, but I don&#039;t see what form it could take.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here are some data points regarding the connection between normality and Kolmogorov complexity. The Kolmogorov complexity of x is &#8211; more or less &#8211; the length of the shortest program that takes input k and returns the k-th binary digit of x). pi is believed to be normal to every base, while it has low Kolmogorov complexity. The 0.a_1a_2&#8230; number in my earlier comment is not normal base-10 (but probably is to other bases), and also has low Kolmogorov complexity. Champernowne&#8217;s constant is definitely normal base-10,  but likely not to other bases, and has low Kolmogorov complexity. In &#8220;Absolutely Abnormal Numbers&#8221;, Greg Martin gives a low Kolmogorov complexity number that is not normal to any base. A random sequence of 0&#8242;s and 1&#8242;s, with 0 twice as likely as 1, considered as the binary expansion of x, will have high Kolmogorov complexity will not be normal.</p>
<p>It does &#8220;feel&#8221; like there should be a connection, but I don&#8217;t see what form it could take.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin O'Bryant</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/comment-page-1/#comment-17</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin O'Bryant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2013 22:47:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=12701#comment-17</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There seems to be some incorrect information floating around in the post and comments. There are many specific numbers known to be normal (in base 10), Champerknowne&#039;s number is a classic example. However, all of the numbers known to be normal are defined by way of their expansion, not through geometry or algebra.

For a number to be normal, it is not enough for every finite string to appear in its expansion, it must appear with the correct frequency! It is quite possible (in the logical sense) that every finite string of digits appears in the expansion of pi, but that pi is not normal. Nobody considers that a realistic possibility, but we are still unable to rule it out. In fact, it is still possible that from some point on the only digits that appear in pi are 0 and 3, say. IIRC, in Carl Sagan&#039;s book Contact, some apparent non-normality of pi is discovered and this has implications for the plot.

There are many numbers known to be irrational but whose expansions are not normal and do not contain every finite string. For example, let a_i be 1 if there is a multiple of sqrt{3} between i and i+1, and let a_i be 0 otherwise. Then the number 0.a_1a_2a_3... is irrational (since it is not repeating and not finite), but you will never see two consecutive 0&#039;s, nor three consecutive 1&#039;s.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There seems to be some incorrect information floating around in the post and comments. There are many specific numbers known to be normal (in base 10), Champerknowne&#8217;s number is a classic example. However, all of the numbers known to be normal are defined by way of their expansion, not through geometry or algebra.</p>
<p>For a number to be normal, it is not enough for every finite string to appear in its expansion, it must appear with the correct frequency! It is quite possible (in the logical sense) that every finite string of digits appears in the expansion of pi, but that pi is not normal. Nobody considers that a realistic possibility, but we are still unable to rule it out. In fact, it is still possible that from some point on the only digits that appear in pi are 0 and 3, say. IIRC, in Carl Sagan&#8217;s book Contact, some apparent non-normality of pi is discovered and this has implications for the plot.</p>
<p>There are many numbers known to be irrational but whose expansions are not normal and do not contain every finite string. For example, let a_i be 1 if there is a multiple of sqrt{3} between i and i+1, and let a_i be 0 otherwise. Then the number 0.a_1a_2a_3&#8230; is irrational (since it is not repeating and not finite), but you will never see two consecutive 0&#8242;s, nor three consecutive 1&#8242;s.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/comment-page-1/#comment-16</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2013 21:55:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=12701#comment-16</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[About normal numbers, this has to relate to Kolmogorov complexity in some way, no?
Maybe PI is a normal number, but I wonder if it would no longer be true when looking at at a higher statistical moments of the distribution (but maybe I&#039;m misunderstanding the concept of &quot;density&quot; used in the definition of normal number).
It would seem paradoxal that a number with a low Kolmogorov complexity (such as PI) appears as random as a number with a high Kolmogorov complexity (a true random coin flip).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>About normal numbers, this has to relate to Kolmogorov complexity in some way, no?<br />
Maybe PI is a normal number, but I wonder if it would no longer be true when looking at at a higher statistical moments of the distribution (but maybe I&#8217;m misunderstanding the concept of &#8220;density&#8221; used in the definition of normal number).<br />
It would seem paradoxal that a number with a low Kolmogorov complexity (such as PI) appears as random as a number with a high Kolmogorov complexity (a true random coin flip).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jules Dawson</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/comment-page-1/#comment-15</link>
		<dc:creator>Jules Dawson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2013 05:37:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=12701#comment-15</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[That pi is normal only implies that pi contains all *finite* sets of information in it. Pi probably does not contain, for instance, all the digits of sqrt2 or e consecutively. And it can only contain countably many finite sets of information.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That pi is normal only implies that pi contains all *finite* sets of information in it. Pi probably does not contain, for instance, all the digits of sqrt2 or e consecutively. And it can only contain countably many finite sets of information.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Tate</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/comment-page-1/#comment-14</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Tate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2013 05:28:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=12701#comment-14</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Mufti:  In an infinite sequence of random digits, there will eventually come a sequence of consecutive digits that encodes (say) the complete works of Mark Twain, or Mahler&#039;s 9th symphony, or any other work, using any prespecified encoding.

Using the definition of &quot;normal number&quot; at the link John provided -- i.e. a number where the limiting frequency of any sequence of k digits is 1/b^k in base b -- this will also be true of any normal number.  If the complete works of Mark Twain requires k digits to encode, then once in every b^k subsequences of length k (on average) you will get the complete works of Mark Twain.

So, if pi is normal, then the answer is yes.  I&#039;m not clever enough to know whether, if pi is not normal, the answer might still be yes.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Mufti:  In an infinite sequence of random digits, there will eventually come a sequence of consecutive digits that encodes (say) the complete works of Mark Twain, or Mahler&#8217;s 9th symphony, or any other work, using any prespecified encoding.</p>
<p>Using the definition of &#8220;normal number&#8221; at the link John provided &#8212; i.e. a number where the limiting frequency of any sequence of k digits is 1/b^k in base b &#8212; this will also be true of any normal number.  If the complete works of Mark Twain requires k digits to encode, then once in every b^k subsequences of length k (on average) you will get the complete works of Mark Twain.</p>
<p>So, if pi is normal, then the answer is yes.  I&#8217;m not clever enough to know whether, if pi is not normal, the answer might still be yes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ctd</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/comment-page-1/#comment-13</link>
		<dc:creator>ctd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2013 04:53:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=12701#comment-13</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last I looked into it IIRC, if every particle in the universe was used to encode a digit of pi, there would be a 50% chance of finding an arbitrary 300 digit number therein. Bits instead of digits perhaps, but the point remains: finding particular data of any meaningful length in pi is theoretically assured but practically improbable.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last I looked into it IIRC, if every particle in the universe was used to encode a digit of pi, there would be a 50% chance of finding an arbitrary 300 digit number therein. Bits instead of digits perhaps, but the point remains: finding particular data of any meaningful length in pi is theoretically assured but practically improbable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: javier</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/comment-page-1/#comment-12</link>
		<dc:creator>javier</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2013 01:13:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=12701#comment-12</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Funny: I just wrote a function that looks for the first integer that doesn&#039;t appear in digits. Seems to be 10000.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Funny: I just wrote a function that looks for the first integer that doesn&#8217;t appear in digits. Seems to be 10000.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bencoder</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/comment-page-1/#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator>bencoder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2013 01:06:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=12701#comment-11</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nitpicking, but wouldn&#039;t it be the 6274th decimal place of pi? You went 1 in the wrong direction. For example, look at the first &quot;5&quot; in pi:
pi = 3.141592...
String position(0-indexed): 5th
Decimal place: 4th

so 6275th string position should be the 6274th decimal, not 6276th?
Or did I misunderstand something?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nitpicking, but wouldn&#8217;t it be the 6274th decimal place of pi? You went 1 in the wrong direction. For example, look at the first &#8220;5&#8243; in pi:<br />
pi = 3.141592&#8230;<br />
String position(0-indexed): 5th<br />
Decimal place: 4th</p>
<p>so 6275th string position should be the 6274th decimal, not 6276th?<br />
Or did I misunderstand something?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Tate</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/comment-page-1/#comment-10</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Tate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2013 22:54:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=12701#comment-10</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The fact that almost all numbers are normal helps drive home the fact that the set of numbers humans actually use (or ever will use) has measure zero.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The fact that almost all numbers are normal helps drive home the fact that the set of numbers humans actually use (or ever will use) has measure zero.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/comment-page-1/#comment-9</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2013 22:52:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=12701#comment-9</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Nathan: Such is the nature of infinity.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Nathan: Such is the nature of infinity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mufti</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/comment-page-1/#comment-8</link>
		<dc:creator>Mufti</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2013 22:52:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=12701#comment-8</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Awesome. I hear that every knowledge that can be written are contained in pi. Is there any proof of this? I mean, can we proof that any character combination if converted to number are exist on pi?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Awesome. I hear that every knowledge that can be written are contained in pi. Is there any proof of this? I mean, can we proof that any character combination if converted to number are exist on pi?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pascal Cuoq</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/comment-page-1/#comment-7</link>
		<dc:creator>Pascal Cuoq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2013 22:38:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=12701#comment-7</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hello, John.
Are you aware of this definition?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_number
In particular “it is widely believed that the numbers √2, π, and e are normal, but a proof remains elusive.”]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello, John.<br />
Are you aware of this definition?<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_number" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_number</a><br />
In particular “it is widely believed that the numbers √2, π, and e are normal, but a proof remains elusive.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nathan</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/comment-page-1/#comment-6</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2013 20:19:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=12701#comment-6</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As you say, if pi truly does continue forever without repeating and is a truly random series of numbers, we would expect to find any finite series of numbers within the digits of pi. Let&#039;s call the number represented by that series of digits x.

There must be no upper limit to the number of digits in x; the only stipulation is that it is finite.

Let f(n) be the integer truncation of pi times 10 to the n. So f(3) is 3,141 and f(5) is 314,159.

For any n, f(n) must appear somewhere in pi. Given the above, this can be trivially proven through induction.

Does this imply that the decimal digits of pi must include pi?

That seems wrong, because it violates the stipulation that the length of x&#039;s digit string must be finite. but if it&#039;s wrong, that means there exists some n where f(n) is not included in the decimal digits of pi.

There&#039;s probably some property of infinite sets that I&#039;m forgetting from college that makes this question silly, and I&#039;ve never been much for higher maths. But I&#039;m having a bit of trouble turning it over in my head.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As you say, if pi truly does continue forever without repeating and is a truly random series of numbers, we would expect to find any finite series of numbers within the digits of pi. Let&#8217;s call the number represented by that series of digits x.</p>
<p>There must be no upper limit to the number of digits in x; the only stipulation is that it is finite.</p>
<p>Let f(n) be the integer truncation of pi times 10 to the n. So f(3) is 3,141 and f(5) is 314,159.</p>
<p>For any n, f(n) must appear somewhere in pi. Given the above, this can be trivially proven through induction.</p>
<p>Does this imply that the decimal digits of pi must include pi?</p>
<p>That seems wrong, because it violates the stipulation that the length of x&#8217;s digit string must be finite. but if it&#8217;s wrong, that means there exists some n where f(n) is not included in the decimal digits of pi.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s probably some property of infinite sets that I&#8217;m forgetting from college that makes this question silly, and I&#8217;ve never been much for higher maths. But I&#8217;m having a bit of trouble turning it over in my head.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pepper_chico</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/comment-page-1/#comment-5</link>
		<dc:creator>pepper_chico</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2013 19:44:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=12701#comment-5</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Patrick Honner, Not strange, I guess you never heard of &lt;a href=&quot;http://wowgawd.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/abstruse-goose-%C2%BB-the-smartest-man-in-babylon/&quot; title=&quot;The Smartest Man in Babylon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt; The Book &lt;/a&gt;.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Patrick Honner, Not strange, I guess you never heard of <a href="http://wowgawd.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/abstruse-goose-%C2%BB-the-smartest-man-in-babylon/" title="The Smartest Man in Babylon" rel="nofollow"> The Book </a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kwpolska</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/comment-page-1/#comment-4</link>
		<dc:creator>Kwpolska</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2013 19:39:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=12701#comment-4</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Or, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://tauday.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tau&lt;/a&gt;, the proper circle constant, “2013” starts at digit 3480 (counting from 0, like a &lt;strong&gt;real&lt;/strong&gt; programmer, 3479.)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Or, in <a href="http://tauday.com" rel="nofollow">tau</a>, the proper circle constant, “2013” starts at digit 3480 (counting from 0, like a <strong>real</strong> programmer, 3479.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pepper_chico</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/comment-page-1/#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>pepper_chico</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2013 19:39:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=12701#comment-3</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Patrick Honner, do you think that&#039;s is strange? I guess you never heard of The Book:

&lt;a href=&quot;http://wowgawd.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/abstruse-goose-%C2%BB-the-smartest-man-in-babylon/&quot; title=&quot;The Smartest Man in Babylon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Smartest Man in Babylon&lt;/a&gt;

(note: official abstrusegoose is currently in downtime)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Patrick Honner, do you think that&#8217;s is strange? I guess you never heard of The Book:</p>
<p><a href="http://wowgawd.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/abstruse-goose-%C2%BB-the-smartest-man-in-babylon/" title="The Smartest Man in Babylon" rel="nofollow">The Smartest Man in Babylon</a></p>
<p>(note: official abstrusegoose is currently in downtime)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick Honner</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/01/finding-2013-in-pi/comment-page-1/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Honner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2013 18:58:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=12701#comment-2</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In particular, it seems like we can claim to be able to find periodic sequences of arbitrary length in the expansion of an irrational number.  Which seems true, but strange.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In particular, it seems like we can claim to be able to find periodic sequences of arbitrary length in the expansion of an irrational number.  Which seems true, but strange.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
