Posted: Apr 11, 2010 4:50 pm
by Someone
The following quote from earlier is apropos of the values given by the Microsoft Calculator for Windows98 of 17797577777.77...71/4-177975777771/4, the 7s after the decimal point ranging from 1 to 44, where the calculations were motivated by the fact that (365 +1/4)4=17797577732+72/28. Details on further parts of this motivation are earlier on; I'm just placing this up front.

Someone wrote:The string made up of 'final' digits for the first 44 terms is 38297838339867556722539777859777712092576764. Somewhere I did continue this further and I believe there was something else interesting; but I identify as anomalous the facts that a) 3 digits don't appear until after the 33rd term, b) the last of these is 4 at the 44th term, and c) 7's are highly clustered together. Also, the fact that zero is one of the three digits missing for a while helped me to notice this at all; in fact I probably would not have if, say, 6 accompanied 1 and 4 instead of 0.

Now, I won't even touch the 7-clustering anomaly here; that's already way out there (and harder to get a precise number on). I am going to get overly specific, and there is a fault with this, but... (If someone happens to be here who wants to do this 'right', be my guest). Consider the following an illustration. It could be construed as prejudicial. Probably neither those who understand it nor those who don't will like it.

The probability that a random string of digits will lack 0, 4, and another digit through exactly 33 terms and will have 4 come in as the last digit at the 44th term is slightly less than 8*(0.7)33*(0.2)*[(0.9)9-(0.8)9]*(0.1)=3.1320143281657361052*10-7 (just expanding it to a year I see--1052 has something to do with Buddhism(See term 8 of last post)). The leading 8 chooses what the other digit will be, and 'slightly less' comes from the next factor needing an adjustment to deal with cases of more than three digits, just to clarify for those who could almost but not quite get it.

Be careful to repeat the specific way this is calculated as described in the earlier post, if you are going to verify the data. Note that this one thing does have a much broader context as related in earlier posts here (and beyond that). Coming up late here is going to be a difficult go for any person qualified. I'm sorry about that.