Why respond to a question if you’re just going to go off on a tangent without answering it?

Not a surprise: you took a pot shot at Winnie the Pooh, who’s owned by Disney. You should know better than to mess with the Mouse, especially when you’re comparing one of their beloved mascots to a dictator wannabe.

I’ve never been banned from a single reddit sub or lemmy community. Maybe it’s just you?

Here you go, bud.

If you’re over 12 years old you probably won’t last more than a minute.

They pulled all their info from a reddit thread, though. Even though it was a Windows 11 sub, reddit tends to have more polarized opinions than most.

You’d need a central list, which would defeat the purpose of a decentralized system.

Or set it up so that when you share add community of an instance to your instance, it adds every community that community’s instance had indexed, which will very quickly populate all the major instances.

This is addressed in the first chapter of the book. His formal name is Edward Bear, but Christopher Robin calls him Winnie-the-Pooh without explanation, and the narrator improvises a backstory that justifies the nickname “Pooh.”

OP actually has the burden to prove their own claim, but here you go:

Suppose we create an algorithm to generate a random number, such that:

• The first digit is the ones
• The second digit is the tenths
• The third digit is the tens

And so on. For example, if we generated the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 it would represent the number 531.246.

For a number to be non-infinite, there must be at some point be a digit where all digits after it generate a 0.

For all numbers in our sequence, the probability of generating a 0 is 1/10: there is no point at which we cannot generate a 0. Furthermore, after the first 0 is generated at a, the odds of a+1 being 0 are also 1/10, as are the odds of a+2, a+3, and a+n. So we cannot identify a b, such that entry a+b must be >0, since the odds of any given a+b generating 0 are also 1/10.

Based on this, we can use induction to show that it is possible to generate a truly random number that is a terminating rational number, and indeed it is possible to show this for any specific number as well. For example, the number 2 can be generated by simply rolling “2, 0, 0, 0, 0, …” and there is no nth digit in the sequence that cannot be generated at 0, since the odds of any given n being 0 are still 1/10.

The probability of getting any number with a given set of characteristics is pretty much 0, but that doesn’t mean the number doesn’t exist once generated.

Are you referring to arbitrarily large numbers? Still essentially the same as decimals in the other direction.

Do you have a mathematical proof for the OP’s claim that a truly random number must have infinite digits?

OP is wrong. A truly random real number does have a much higher probability of being an irrational number or repeating rational number, but it is certainly not the case that a truly random number “will be” one of these two as terminating rational numbers are still possible to select.

No. In the set of real numbers it is still very possible to randomly select a number that can be written with finite digits.

That’s not how that works.

Giff, the double f means hard g to me. Whereas the single f in gif demands a soft g.

Because it’s made like fried chicken. So it’s “chicken fried” steak.

“But it’s not practical to live by a waterfall!”

Ok, but Spotify has whole playlists of waterfall white noise that could be rigged up on speakers.

“God works in mysterious ways” is blaming things on gods when your god may have nothing to do with it. That signals you’re trying to me smarter than your god way more than saying, “Let’s figure this out.”

There are humans with 6. 5 is just the most common.

“Conciseness” is a real word.

Nah, it goes:

Lemon > lime > orange > strawberry > any other berry > cherry > root beer >> bubblegum >>> banana >>>> butterscotch >>>>>>>>>> grape