## A Thread for scratch123's Random Math Questions

For the discussion of math. Duh.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

### Re: Why do e, pi, and sqrt(2) look less random when multipli

scratch123 wrote:From what I have read randomness actually doesn't have a well defined definition. In fact the first sentence here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness is "Randomness means different things in various fields". Like I said before people are excellent at pattern recognition so if they see something as random chances are you can find mathematical justification for it.

Having multiple definitions in different fields is still well-defined and completely different from not having a definition. Furthermore, by introducing your own definition you're just making the problem [urlhttp://xkcd.com/927/]worse[/url].

And again, you claim that humans are good at pattern recognition but so far have only asserted this fact with no actual basis. Until you provided evidence for this, there is no reason for us to accept it.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

Carlington
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:46 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia.

### Re: A Thread for scratch123's Random Math Questions

I'm sure he's seen quite a lot of cases of people being good at pattern recognition.
Kewangji: Posdy zwei tosdy osdy oady. Bork bork bork, hoppity syphilis bork.

Eebster the Great: What specifically is moving faster than light in these examples?
doogly: Hands waving furiously.

Please use he/him/his pronouns when referring to me.

brenok
Needs Directions
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:35 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

### Re: A Thread for scratch123's Random Math Questions

I would agree that humand are good at pattern recognition. If by "good" you mean "can find them everywhere", of course.

scratch123
Posts: 236
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:18 pm UTC

### Re: Why do e, pi, and sqrt(2) look less random when multipli

eSOANEM wrote:
scratch123 wrote:From what I have read randomness actually doesn't have a well defined definition. In fact the first sentence here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness is "Randomness means different things in various fields". Like I said before people are excellent at pattern recognition so if they see something as random chances are you can find mathematical justification for it.

Having multiple definitions in different fields is still well-defined and completely different from not having a definition. Furthermore, by introducing your own definition you're just making the problem [urlhttp://xkcd.com/927/]worse[/url].

And again, you claim that humans are good at pattern recognition but so far have only asserted this fact with no actual basis. Until you provided evidence for this, there is no reason for us to accept it.

No having different definitions in various fields means people can't decide what randomness really means. Like the wikipedia article said sometimes it means lack of pattern and sometimes it means lack of predictably. I am starting to get an idea from the people in this topic that people lean toward the "lack of predictability" definition while I prefer the "lack of pattern" definition. I am also not introducing my own definition of randomness either. It happens to be a definition that I have read about and happened to agree with. It is well known that humans are good at pattern recognition which is why they can beat computers at many tasks. It has to do with the fact that humans process stuff in parallel while computers have to do tasks one at a time.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

### Re: Why do e, pi, and sqrt(2) look less random when multipli

Ok, here's 2 numbers. One is from one of your 'less random' versions of pi and e, and one is a random number I just made in excel. Which is which?

7797204405
7737121582
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

Schrollini
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:20 pm UTC

### The map is not the territory

scratch123 wrote:No having different definitions in various fields means people can't decide what randomness really means.

Biologists think that a nucleus is an organelle that contains the cell's DNA. Physicists thing a nucleus is the part of an atom containing the protons and neutrons. Oh no! -- people in different fields can't decide what "nucleus" really means.

Or, maybe, there's not a one-to-one mapping between words and concepts.
For your convenience: a LaTeX to BBCode converter

doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5463
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

### Re: Why do e, pi, and sqrt(2) look less random when multipli

mike-l wrote:Ok, here's 2 numbers. One is from one of your 'less random' versions of pi and e, and one is a random number I just made in excel. Which is which?

7797204405
7737121582

I'm confused. What point are you trying to make with this ridiculous question?
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

### Re: A Thread for scratch123's Random Math Questions

It's a ridiculous question in response to Scratch's ridiculous claims.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5463
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

### Re: A Thread for scratch123's Random Math Questions

Fair enough.

Also, scratch, performing an operation in parallel is something that has a technical meaning. Please do not use it the way you did there, because that is just absolute nonsense.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Stickman
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:55 am UTC
Location: Decatur, Ga

### Re: A Thread for scratch123's Random Math Questions

doogly wrote:Fair enough.

Also, scratch, performing an operation in parallel is something that has a technical meaning. Please do not use it the way you did there, because that is just absolute nonsense.

Is that a joke? I can't quite tell!

doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5463
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

### Re: A Thread for scratch123's Random Math Questions

It's completely sincere.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Stickman
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:55 am UTC
Location: Decatur, Ga

### Re: A Thread for scratch123's Random Math Questions

I am not a neuroscientist, so feel to correct me if I'm mistaken. My impression is that using "parallel" to describe neuron activity in the brain seems to be pretty standard practice in computational neuroscience. Especially in tasks such a visual pattern recognition, there do appear to be processes that run in parallel, in the sense that various features are identified simultaneously by different neurons or regions, and then synthesized. I have found a few essays decrying the use of "massively parallel" to describe brain function, since the interconnectedness of the neural structures mean that the brain generally doesn't consist of independent processing units in the sense of a parallel computer. Even in electronic computation, parallel processing usually includes some form of synthesis (expect in the most extreme cases), so it seems like many aspects of the brain would fit the definition of parallel computing, even if the analogy is not perfect?

Maybe the definitions of "parallel" are just a bit different between neuroscience and CS? What definition of "parallel processing" are you using? That's why I thought you might be joking

Edit: I noticed you're posts says "performing an operation in parallel", which seems to imply some form of equivalence of the computational units. This is stronger than what is generally meant by "parallel processing".

gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

### Re: Why do e, pi, and sqrt(2) look less random when multipli

scratch123 wrote:sometimes it means lack of pattern and sometimes it means lack of predictably.
But lack of predictability implies lack of a pattern, because a true pattern must have some sort of predictability to it. So something that's random in the "not predictable" sense, as you say we're advocating, must *also* be random in the "not patterned" sense.

The patterns you see everywhere, if they're real, will allow you to make predictions about what to expect next.

But since you can't make any such predictions (or at least, since you have thus far failed utterly to do anything remotely of the sort, despite the multitude of patterns you claim to have found all over the place), there must not actually be such patterns.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5463
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

### Re: A Thread for scratch123's Random Math Questions

scratch claimed that humans do parallel but computers don't
there is no sense of parallel in which humans do but a computer can't
(this could be rendered trivially true by realizing that humans are a subset of computers, but even without that little pearl it's still demonstrable)
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

arbiteroftruth
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:44 am UTC

### Re: Why do e, pi, and sqrt(2) look less random when multipli

gmalivuk wrote:The patterns you see everywhere, if they're real, will allow you to make predictions about what to expect next.

Not necessarily, depending on how you define what it means to be a pattern. It seems like scratch is using something like information compressibility as a measure of what constitutes a pattern. So that the Feynman point, though no less likely than any other string of 6 digits, and though it provides no general predictive power for the digits of pi, still constitutes a local pattern.

I also suspect that scratch's notion of "true randomness" of a sequence might be something like "optimally random at any length". A sequence like 01100101 maintains the distribution of digit sequences as uniformally as possible for whatever length of the string you consider. While the example from the wikipedia page he linked to starts with 01110111, which as a substring is not uniformally distributed.

Of course any random string of sufficient length will eventually contain substrings that don't themselves match a uniform distribution, but that's where scratch's thinking seems to make use of the expected amount of time before such strings occur. If the notion of "truly random" isn't primarily concerned with arbitrary substrings, but only with truncations, then it makes a difference how long you wait before you encounter a recurring string of digits.

gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

### Re: A Thread for scratch123's Random Math Questions

But the thing about scratch's notion of randomness is that he seems to have rendered it impossible, because every infinite sequence is going to have smaller bits that are (or at least seem) pattern-like.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

scratch123
Posts: 236
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:18 pm UTC

### Re: Why do e, pi, and sqrt(2) look less random when multipli

mike-l wrote:Ok, here's 2 numbers. One is from one of your 'less random' versions of pi and e, and one is a random number I just made in excel. Which is which?

7797204405
7737121582

There is nothing wrong with this question and it provided an interesting puzzle. What I decided to do was take the absolute value of the difference of consecutive integers in each sequence and then doing the same for the new sequence. This technique is actually used in some compression algorithms except the numbers are in binary instead. Here are the results:

1. 7797204405
022524045
20332441
2301203

2. 7737121582
044611436
40250313
4235322

I could have done this until there was only one number left but the pattern was becoming too obvious. The first sequence only uses the numbers 0-3 when compressed 3 times which is simpler than the 2-5 the second sequence uses. In addition to this the last 3 numbers in sequence 1 are just a slight permutation of the first 3. Sequence 1 is clearly less random. This also matched my intuitive judgement of which sequence was less random before I started analyzing them.

eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

### Re: Why do e, pi, and sqrt(2) look less random when multipli

scratch123 wrote:No having different definitions in various fields means people can't decide what randomness really means. Like the wikipedia article said sometimes it means lack of pattern and sometimes it means lack of predictably. I am starting to get an idea from the people in this topic that people lean toward the "lack of predictability" definition while I prefer the "lack of pattern" definition. I am also not introducing my own definition of randomness either. It happens to be a definition that I have read about and happened to agree with. It is well known that humans are good at pattern recognition which is why they can beat computers at many tasks. It has to do with the fact that humans process stuff in parallel while computers have to do tasks one at a time.

No.

It simply means that different definitions are appropriate in different fields. The reason for this is that if I start a new field and notice a property in it which is similar but not quite the same as one in a different field, I can either come up with a new name or name it by analogy. Usually people prefer the latter because it provides some intuition of what the property means and because it doesn't lead to an enormous explosion of jargon. Unfortunately this does mean you get multiple definitions. Usually though, only one applies at a time (and where more than one applies, usually context makes it clear or else people add adjectives to clarify which definition they're using:

e.g.

a homogeneous differential equation could be one of the form dy/dx=f(y/x) or it could be of the D(y)=0 where D is some differential operator but it's pretty clear which one I mean from the equation I'm describing

sum can mean a binary operation on scalars, vectors, matrices, tensors etc. or can be an operation on a whole sequence. Combine this with the fact that, in physics, magnitudes of vector quantities are often referred to by the same name as the vector and you could have confusion: by the sum of two forces, do I mean the vector sum or their scalar sum? Well, I just solved the ambiguity right there for you.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

### Re: Why do e, pi, and sqrt(2) look less random when multipli

scratch123 wrote:
mike-l wrote:Ok, here's 2 numbers. One is from one of your 'less random' versions of pi and e, and one is a random number I just made in excel. Which is which?

7797204405
7737121582

There is nothing wrong with this question and it provided an interesting puzzle. What I decided to do was take the absolute value of the difference of consecutive integers in each sequence and then doing the same for the new sequence. This technique is actually used in some compression algorithms except the numbers are in binary instead. Here are the results:

1. 7797204405
022524045
20332441
2301203

2. 7737121582
044611436
40250313
4235322

I could have done this until there was only one number left but the pattern was becoming too obvious. The first sequence only uses the numbers 0-3 when compressed 3 times which is simpler than the 2-5 the second sequence uses. In addition to this the last 3 numbers in sequence 1 are just a slight permutation of the first 3. Sequence 1 is clearly less random. This also matched my intuitive judgement of which sequence was less random before I started analyzing them.

So, no matter what the numbers, this is how we work out which is more random? Why? Because there's a compression algorithm that uses it? What about all the other compression algorithms that do something completely different. Why are compression algorithms involved in this at all?

And furthermore, if you follow through a little bit on your calculations, ie do one more line, you get

1. 2301203 -> 132223 -> 21001 -> 1101 -> 011 -> 10 -> 1
2. 4235322 -> 212210 -> 11011 -> 0110 -> 101 -> 11 -> 0

which seems to reverse what you were claiming would happen. On the next iteration, seqence 1 has 3s, and sequence 2 doesn't. But frankly, I think you're completely ad hoc and without clear or good reasons for doing this. "An algorithm does something like this" isn't a reason.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

### Re: A Thread for scratch123's Random Math Questions

To be fair, he did pick the one from e correctly, though of course he had a 50% chance of doing so. Also those numbers weren't picked with any bias, I just said I'm going to press more digits n times and scroll to the bottom, and the random number was the first try, pure coincidence that they both started with 77.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

scratch123
Posts: 236
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:18 pm UTC

### Re: Why do e, pi, and sqrt(2) look less random when multipli

jestingrabbit wrote:
scratch123 wrote:
mike-l wrote:Ok, here's 2 numbers. One is from one of your 'less random' versions of pi and e, and one is a random number I just made in excel. Which is which?

7797204405
7737121582

There is nothing wrong with this question and it provided an interesting puzzle. What I decided to do was take the absolute value of the difference of consecutive integers in each sequence and then doing the same for the new sequence. This technique is actually used in some compression algorithms except the numbers are in binary instead. Here are the results:

1. 7797204405
022524045
20332441
2301203

2. 7737121582
044611436
40250313
4235322

I could have done this until there was only one number left but the pattern was becoming too obvious. The first sequence only uses the numbers 0-3 when compressed 3 times which is simpler than the 2-5 the second sequence uses. In addition to this the last 3 numbers in sequence 1 are just a slight permutation of the first 3. Sequence 1 is clearly less random. This also matched my intuitive judgement of which sequence was less random before I started analyzing them.

So, no matter what the numbers, this is how we work out which is more random? Why? Because there's a compression algorithm that uses it? What about all the other compression algorithms that do something completely different. Why are compression algorithms involved in this at all?

And furthermore, if you follow through a little bit on your calculations, ie do one more line, you get

1. 2301203 -> 132223 -> 21001 -> 1101 -> 011 -> 10 -> 1
2. 4235322 -> 212210 -> 11011 -> 0110 -> 101 -> 11 -> 0

which seems to reverse what you were claiming would happen. On the next iteration, seqence 1 has 3s, and sequence 2 doesn't. But frankly, I think you're completely ad hoc and without clear or good reasons for doing this. "An algorithm does something like this" isn't a reason.

But you can compare compression algorithms based on how simple they are. Iterating all the way to one number makes things more complicated. Also you made a mistake on #1. The next number should be 131123.

Talith
Proved the Goldbach Conjecture
Posts: 848
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:28 am UTC
Location: Manchester - UK

### Re: A Thread for scratch123's Random Math Questions

You can't just start throwing words around like 'simple' without defining them. If you're trying to have a serious mathematical discussion, don't use terms with ambiguous meaning unless you're going to clarrify the specific definition you're using. It does no good to confuse someone because you're using the definition that suits you and it does even less good if you're not consistant in the deifnition you use.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

### Re: A Thread for scratch123's Random Math Questions

This also isn't even remotely a compression, as it's not reversible. It's a hash function.

2301203 could also have been

1388663561
250203215
35223114
2301203

or many many many others.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

### Re: A Thread for scratch123's Random Math Questions

mike-l wrote:This also isn't even remotely a compression, as it's not reversible.
Which means that, even if scratch is defining "pattern" (to the extent that he's defining anything at all in this discussion) in terms of compressibility rather than predictibility, it still fails in this case.

And of course even when you can compress some small bit of a longer sequence in a proper (i.e. reversible) way, if you can' do so the same way with longer bits of the sequence, then whatever "compression" you're doing doesn't actually demonstrate that there's a pattern to the whole thing. Just that there are small, pattern-like substrings in *any* sufficiently long sequence, whether it's random or not.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Stickman
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:55 am UTC
Location: Decatur, Ga

### Re: A Thread for scratch123's Random Math Questions

In particular, incompressible strings of length n can contain substrings compressible by an O(log n) amount. This is especially true of infinite strings. Randomness of an infinite string depends on the near incompressibility (up to a constant factor) of all but a finite number of prefixes - it's certainly possible for a Kolmogorov random infinite string to start with 10,000 '9's, but even a randomly selected Kolmogorov random string will have some prefixes compressible by some amount, and will surely contain such substrings. In fact, a string randomly generated by selecting consecutive digits from some multinomial distribution on {0,..,9} (positive probability for each digit) will almost surely contain any given finite subsequence!

That said, Kolmogorov complexity / incompressibility are not a good way of approaching the "randomness" of pi, e, and sqrt(2), since it seems like all of those infinite strings have very low Komogorov complexity. Each can be represented by simple finite algorithms (i.e. series representations).

4=5
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:02 am UTC

### Re: A Thread for scratch123's Random Math Questions

Actually could I borrow scratch123 for a moment? I'd like to automate his pattern recognition abilities and limitations for my own purposes.

scratch123: could you let me know of all the non random patterns in each of these five sequences? The things that catch your attention and seem unusual.

Code: Select all

`111100001010000001000001011010101110011001100111100011110110000010011101110100011001101001111110110100111110111011011101000011110110111101001100001100`

scratch123
Posts: 236
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:18 pm UTC

### Re: A Thread for scratch123's Random Math Questions

4=5 wrote:Actually could I borrow scratch123 for a moment? I'd like to automate his pattern recognition abilities and limitations for my own purposes.

scratch123: could you let me know of all the non random patterns in each of these five sequences? The things that catch your attention and seem unusual.

Code: Select all

`111100001010000001000001011010101110011001100111100011110110000010011101110100011001101001111110110100111110111011011101000011110110111101001100001100`

I think the 4th one is the least random since it has 2 sequences of 5 straight 1's and it has many more 1's than 0's. No other sequence has a 1 and 0 ratio as great as that one.

flownt
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:24 pm UTC

### Re: A Thread for scratch123's Random Math Questions

Hooray for using a consistent test statistic!!!

gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

### Re: A Thread for scratch123's Random Math Questions

scratch123 wrote:I think the 4th one is the least random since it has 2 sequences of 5 straight 1's and it has many more 1's than 0's. No other sequence has a 1 and 0 ratio as great as that one.
Why are sequences of 1's important, but sequences of 0's aren't? Why is a high 1 to 0 ratio important, but a high 0 to 1 ratio isn't?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

scratch123
Posts: 236
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:18 pm UTC

### Re: A Thread for scratch123's Random Math Questions

gmalivuk wrote:
scratch123 wrote:I think the 4th one is the least random since it has 2 sequences of 5 straight 1's and it has many more 1's than 0's. No other sequence has a 1 and 0 ratio as great as that one.
Why are sequences of 1's important, but sequences of 0's aren't? Why is a high 1 to 0 ratio important, but a high 0 to 1 ratio isn't?

Well there is nothing like a sequence of 5 straight 0's 2 times in any of the other numbers either. Even if you look at the 0 to 1 ratio in the other numbers it isn't very high.

Dason
Posts: 1310
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:06 am UTC
Location: ~/

### Re: A Thread for scratch123's Random Math Questions

scratch123 wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
scratch123 wrote:I think the 4th one is the least random since it has 2 sequences of 5 straight 1's and it has many more 1's than 0's. No other sequence has a 1 and 0 ratio as great as that one.
Why are sequences of 1's important, but sequences of 0's aren't? Why is a high 1 to 0 ratio important, but a high 0 to 1 ratio isn't?

Well there is nothing like a sequence of 5 straight 0's 2 times in any of the other numbers either. Even if you look at the 0 to 1 ratio in the other numbers it isn't very high.

Can you explain why you're using that stuff as part of your criteria though? Can you tell me what you would expect the longest string of either 0s or 1s to be if the sequence was completely random?
double epsilon = -.0000001;

gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

### Re: A Thread for scratch123's Random Math Questions

scratch123 wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
scratch123 wrote:I think the 4th one is the least random since it has 2 sequences of 5 straight 1's and it has many more 1's than 0's. No other sequence has a 1 and 0 ratio as great as that one.
Why are sequences of 1's important, but sequences of 0's aren't? Why is a high 1 to 0 ratio important, but a high 0 to 1 ratio isn't?

Well there is nothing like a sequence of 5 straight 0's 2 times in any of the other numbers either.
The first number has 6 straight zeros followed by 5 straight zeros.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)