There is an infinite chance of the sequence occuring, but there is also an infinite chance of the sequence not occurring. This is because there are types of infinity in probability rather than 'just infinity'.
At least that's how my uneducated layman brain deals with this sort of question.
Name:
Anonymous2013-08-24 9:31
>>47
The chance of "not-occurring" decreases for each additional digit and the chance of "occurring" increases. Try it with http://pi.nersc.gov/
Name:
Anonymous2013-08-24 10:00
For sequences of length 1 the answer is an unequivocal yes. After that it takes more effort than I wish to contemplate.
Name:
Anonymous2013-08-24 10:26
>>48
Yes, the chance of the not occurring outcome decreases, but in the case of an irrational number, wouldn't it would decrease infinitely, never truly cancelling out? Therefore leaving the ever diminishing but remaining possibility.
Name:
Anonymous2013-08-24 11:26
If `pi` is infinite. Then there will be a section where `pi` repeats itself, but how can that be so, since the section will then have a section where `pi` repeats itself, and we hit an impossible situation of inception. Hence `pi` is not infinite, it is only irrational temporarily. Once more powerful machines come about, a time will come, where the age old problem will be solved of squaring the circle hence finding the end of `pi`.
Believe it™
Name:
Anonymous2013-08-24 11:38
>>51
pi cannot contains itself because the set of numbers in pi is larger than any subset.
A subset is by definition is contained by the set. A part cannot larger than a whole.
Name:
Anonymous2013-08-24 11:41
A part cannot larger than a whole.
It can if the shaft is long enough. *grabs dick*
>>51 If `pi` is infinite. Then there will be a section where `pi` repeats itself,
Not necessarily. consider the infinite, irrational number described by:
0.0110101000101...
Where (treating the first digit after the decimal point as index 1) digits at prime indices are 1, and digits at nonprime indices are 0. Clearly this sequence never repeats itself.
Name:
Anonymous2013-08-24 13:31
>>54
Your post implies that it was ever of sufficiently high quality to allow a poster to answer this question in an informed manner.
The strange thing is that you don't need to be well-educated mathematically to answer this question; it's not exactly a calculus problem. To be fair, though, a number of people answered more or less correctly, following which only an imbecile would feel the need to provide an answer. So you see, this polling method is biased in favour of imbeciles.