Talk:1562: I in Team - Revision history

DiamondNether90 at 22:30, 26 March 2026

2026-03-26T22:30:53Z

ChristmasGospel at 17:27, 16 November 2024

2024-11-16T17:27:29Z

172.69.134.71 at 00:05, 3 July 2023

2023-07-03T00:05:45Z

172.69.247.50 at 13:28, 28 June 2023

2023-06-28T13:28:55Z

Lupo: corrected my own comment.

2020-01-24T13:28:10Z

corrected my own comment.

108.162.242.21 at 22:51, 12 November 2019

2019-11-12T22:51:37Z

108.162.241.28 at 18:37, 12 November 2019

2019-11-12T18:37:59Z

Lupo at 09:24, 2 October 2019

2019-10-02T09:24:41Z

162.158.63.118: that's not how irrational numbers work

2018-10-22T13:50:14Z

that's not how irrational numbers work

ChromoTec: Added to the talk page

2017-08-05T15:30:27Z

Added to the talk page

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:30, 26 March 2026
Line 26:		Line 26:

	:::::: The numbers that contain all possible finite combinations of digits are called normal numbers. Square root of two, pi, ln(2), and e are all believed to be normal numbers, but there's no easy way to prove it.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.50\|172.69.247.50]] 13:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)		:::::: The numbers that contain all possible finite combinations of digits are called normal numbers. Square root of two, pi, ln(2), and e are all believed to be normal numbers, but there's no easy way to prove it.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.50\|172.69.247.50]] 13:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
		+
		+	:::::: The number 0.1101010001010001010001000001... (1 if digit is in a prime position, 0 otherwise) is irrational, but clearly doesn't contain every finite substring of numbers (consider '2'). [[User:DiamondNether90\|DiamondNether90]] ([[User talk:DiamondNether90\|talk]]) 22:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

	The arbitrariness of this saying was demonstrated considerably more elegantly in Jeffrey Rowland's Wigu: "There is no I in 'team', but there is in 'family'." [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.93\|198.41.242.93]] 11:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)		The arbitrariness of this saying was demonstrated considerably more elegantly in Jeffrey Rowland's Wigu: "There is no I in 'team', but there is in 'family'." [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.93\|198.41.242.93]] 11:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:27, 16 November 2024
Line 53:		Line 53:

	Is this comic related to {{w\|metalinguistics}}? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.71\|172.69.134.71]] 00:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)		Is this comic related to {{w\|metalinguistics}}? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.71\|172.69.134.71]] 00:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
		+
		+	[http://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?title=User:ColorfulGalaxy/Encyclopedia_of_numbers&diff=156361&oldid=156358 There is no "#" in "blue".] [[User:ChristmasGospel\|ChristmasGospel]] ([[User talk:ChristmasGospel\|talk]]) 17:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:05, 3 July 2023
Line 51:		Line 51:

	"There is no I in team" is also sometimes used on voice coms for video games or other situations where the listener may not be able to identify the individual by voice, to explain why they should identify themselves in third person. --[[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.83\|199.27.133.83]] 02:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)		"There is no I in team" is also sometimes used on voice coms for video games or other situations where the listener may not be able to identify the individual by voice, to explain why they should identify themselves in third person. --[[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.83\|199.27.133.83]] 02:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	Is this comic related to {{w\|metalinguistics}}? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.71\|172.69.134.71]] 00:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:28, 28 June 2023
Line 24:		Line 24:

	:::::: To make it clear: Pi is an endless string of digits after the decimal point, and there is no repeating element at the end, and it cannot be represented by a fraction. It is easy to (falsely) conclude that, to follow this rules, there is each and every (finite) sequence in it somewhere. However it is (with enough processing time) possible to determine any finite amount of digits of pi. So let's say we analyse the first 10^10^10^10 digits of pi, and you look for your finite sequence, let's say your social security number. Either it is in it (that is no proof that EVERY number-sequence is in there), or it is not. In case it is not, there is no proof (yet?), that there is not a certain "rule" after the (10^10^10^10)+1 digit, that e.g. the digit 5 is not appearing anymore. If your social security number contains a 5, it wouldn't be in pi if it's not within the first 10^10^10^10 digits, while pi's digits could still be non repeating and endless. Therefore it actually cannot be concluded that pi contains every finite sequence of numbers. --[[User:Lupo\|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo\|talk]]) 09:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)		:::::: To make it clear: Pi is an endless string of digits after the decimal point, and there is no repeating element at the end, and it cannot be represented by a fraction. It is easy to (falsely) conclude that, to follow this rules, there is each and every (finite) sequence in it somewhere. However it is (with enough processing time) possible to determine any finite amount of digits of pi. So let's say we analyse the first 10^10^10^10 digits of pi, and you look for your finite sequence, let's say your social security number. Either it is in it (that is no proof that EVERY number-sequence is in there), or it is not. In case it is not, there is no proof (yet?), that there is not a certain "rule" after the (10^10^10^10)+1 digit, that e.g. the digit 5 is not appearing anymore. If your social security number contains a 5, it wouldn't be in pi if it's not within the first 10^10^10^10 digits, while pi's digits could still be non repeating and endless. Therefore it actually cannot be concluded that pi contains every finite sequence of numbers. --[[User:Lupo\|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo\|talk]]) 09:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	:::::: The numbers that contain all possible finite combinations of digits are called normal numbers. Square root of two, pi, ln(2), and e are all believed to be normal numbers, but there's no easy way to prove it.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.50\|172.69.247.50]] 13:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

	The arbitrariness of this saying was demonstrated considerably more elegantly in Jeffrey Rowland's Wigu: "There is no I in 'team', but there is in 'family'." [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.93\|198.41.242.93]] 11:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)		The arbitrariness of this saying was demonstrated considerably more elegantly in Jeffrey Rowland's Wigu: "There is no I in 'team', but there is in 'family'." [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.93\|198.41.242.93]] 11:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 :::::: That is ''not'' what irrational number means. Just because it cannot be expressed as a decimal does not mean that every possible decimal sequence necessarily occurs. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.118|162.158.63.118]] 13:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
-:::::: To make it clear: Pi is an endless string of digits after the decimal point, and there is no repeating element at the end, and it cannot be represented by a fraction. It is easy to (falsely) conclude that, to follow this rules, there is each and every (finite) sequence in it somewhere. However it is (with enough processing time) possible to determine any finite amount of digits of pi. So let's say we analyse the first 10^10^10^10 digits of pi, and you look for your finite sequence, let's say your social security number. Either it is in it (that is no proof that sequence number is in there), or it is not. In case it is not, there is no proof (yet?), that there is not a certain "rule" after the (10^10^10^10)+1 digit, that e.g. the digit 5 is not appearing anymore. If your social security number contains a 5, it wouldn't be in pi if it's not within the first 10^10^10^10 digits, while pi's digits could still be non repeating and endless. Therefore it actually cannot be concluded that pi contains every finite sequence of numbers. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
+:::::: To make it clear: Pi is an endless string of digits after the decimal point, and there is no repeating element at the end, and it cannot be represented by a fraction. It is easy to (falsely) conclude that, to follow this rules, there is each and every (finite) sequence in it somewhere. However it is (with enough processing time) possible to determine any finite amount of digits of pi. So let's say we analyse the first 10^10^10^10 digits of pi, and you look for your finite sequence, let's say your social security number. Either it is in it (that is no proof that EVERY number-sequence is in there), or it is not. In case it is not, there is no proof (yet?), that there is not a certain "rule" after the (10^10^10^10)+1 digit, that e.g. the digit 5 is not appearing anymore. If your social security number contains a 5, it wouldn't be in pi if it's not within the first 10^10^10^10 digits, while pi's digits could still be non repeating and endless. Therefore it actually cannot be concluded that pi contains every finite sequence of numbers. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 The arbitrariness of this saying was demonstrated considerably more elegantly in Jeffrey Rowland's Wigu: "There is no I in 'team', but there is in 'family'." [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.93|198.41.242.93]] 11:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 I think it's interesting that there is exactly one "u" in "People who apparently don't understand the relationship between orthography and meaning", which has 76 letters.  "U" isn't a terribly infrequent letter.  [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.133|108.162.221.133]] 04:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 : The frequency of "u" is about 2.8%.  Assuming a binomial distribution, one "u" out of 76 letters is about a 25% probability.  Nothing of significance here, even though 2 "u"s would be slightly more likely. --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.235.101|198.41.235.101]] 14:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
-:: You make it sound like the title text was generated randomly.  Randall obviously chose the sentence carefully to contain a single U.  Here's a far more extreme example, an entire 50,000 word novel written without the letter E:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsby_(novel).  Should we calculate the odds of this happening?!
+:: You make it sound like the text was generated randomly.  Randall obviously chose the sentence carefully to contain a single U.  Here's a far more extreme example, an entire 50,000 word novel written without the letter E:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsby_(novel).  Should we calculate the odds of this happening?!
 I think part of the joke that is missed in the current explanation is that cueball is responding with a less vulgar version of the common retort: "But there is a 'U' in c*nt."[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.188|108.162.250.188]] 09:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:24, 2 October 2019
Line 22:		Line 22:

	:::::: That is ''not'' what irrational number means. Just because it cannot be expressed as a decimal does not mean that every possible decimal sequence necessarily occurs. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.118\|162.158.63.118]] 13:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)		:::::: That is ''not'' what irrational number means. Just because it cannot be expressed as a decimal does not mean that every possible decimal sequence necessarily occurs. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.118\|162.158.63.118]] 13:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	:::::: To make it clear: Pi is an endless string of digits after the decimal point, and there is no repeating element at the end, and it cannot be represented by a fraction. It is easy to (falsely) conclude that, to follow this rules, there is each and every (finite) sequence in it somewhere. However it is (with enough processing time) possible to determine any finite amount of digits of pi. So let's say we analyse the first 10^10^10^10 digits of pi, and you look for your finite sequence, let's say your social security number. Either it is in it (that is no proof that sequence number is in there), or it is not. In case it is not, there is no proof (yet?), that there is not a certain "rule" after the (10^10^10^10)+1 digit, that e.g. the digit 5 is not appearing anymore. If your social security number contains a 5, it wouldn't be in pi if it's not within the first 10^10^10^10 digits, while pi's digits could still be non repeating and endless. Therefore it actually cannot be concluded that pi contains every finite sequence of numbers. --[[User:Lupo\|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo\|talk]]) 09:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

	The arbitrariness of this saying was demonstrated considerably more elegantly in Jeffrey Rowland's Wigu: "There is no I in 'team', but there is in 'family'." [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.93\|198.41.242.93]] 11:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)		The arbitrariness of this saying was demonstrated considerably more elegantly in Jeffrey Rowland's Wigu: "There is no I in 'team', but there is in 'family'." [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.93\|198.41.242.93]] 11:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:50, 22 October 2018
Line 20:		Line 20:

	::::: Though pic is an irrational number, meaning that you could theoretically find your birthday, your SSN, even a binary representation of your DNA sequence somewhere in pi's sequence. [[User:ChromoTec\|ChromoTec]] ([[User talk:ChromoTec\|talk]]) 15:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)ChromoTec		::::: Though pic is an irrational number, meaning that you could theoretically find your birthday, your SSN, even a binary representation of your DNA sequence somewhere in pi's sequence. [[User:ChromoTec\|ChromoTec]] ([[User talk:ChromoTec\|talk]]) 15:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)ChromoTec
		+
		+	:::::: That is ''not'' what irrational number means. Just because it cannot be expressed as a decimal does not mean that every possible decimal sequence necessarily occurs. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.118\|162.158.63.118]] 13:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

	The arbitrariness of this saying was demonstrated considerably more elegantly in Jeffrey Rowland's Wigu: "There is no I in 'team', but there is in 'family'." [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.93\|198.41.242.93]] 11:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)		The arbitrariness of this saying was demonstrated considerably more elegantly in Jeffrey Rowland's Wigu: "There is no I in 'team', but there is in 'family'." [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.93\|198.41.242.93]] 11:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:30, 5 August 2017
Line 18:		Line 18:

	:::: ''finite'' sequence. the kate bush conjecture is unproven. {{unsigned ip\|141.101.98.34}}		:::: ''finite'' sequence. the kate bush conjecture is unproven. {{unsigned ip\|141.101.98.34}}
		+
		+	::::: Though pic is an irrational number, meaning that you could theoretically find your birthday, your SSN, even a binary representation of your DNA sequence somewhere in pi's sequence. [[User:ChromoTec\|ChromoTec]] ([[User talk:ChromoTec\|talk]]) 15:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)ChromoTec

	The arbitrariness of this saying was demonstrated considerably more elegantly in Jeffrey Rowland's Wigu: "There is no I in 'team', but there is in 'family'." [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.93\|198.41.242.93]] 11:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)		The arbitrariness of this saying was demonstrated considerably more elegantly in Jeffrey Rowland's Wigu: "There is no I in 'team', but there is in 'family'." [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.93\|198.41.242.93]] 11:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)