Ok, I'm not a mathematician (or a physicist), but this seems... dubious...
Like... what?:
> Moreover, a better terminology for the so-called real numbers is "random numbers", as their series of bits are truly random
0.5 is a real number. Its series of bits is not random at all. sqrt(2) is also a real number, and its digits looks sort-of random, but they're not really: they're exactly the sequence of digits that forms a number that, when squared, equals 2. You can easily develop very simple formulas or programs to generate them, so in a "Kolmogorov complexity" sense, it's not random at all. Point is: the concept of "having random digits" is in NO way intrinsic to "being a real number". I guess what he meant to say was "non-computable numbers"? So he's saying "in a finite volume, there can't be non-computable numbers"... or something?
Again: not a mathematician or a physicist, but this comes off as pretty crank:y to me. I would love to be corrected.
> Moreover, a better terminology for the so-called real numbers is "random numbers", as their series of bits are truly random
0.5 is a real number. Its series of bits is not random at all. sqrt(2) is also a real number, and its digits looks sort-of random, but they're not really: they're exactly the sequence of digits that forms a number that, when squared, equals 2. You can easily develop very simple formulas or programs to generate them, so in a "Kolmogorov complexity" sense, it's not random at all. Point is: the concept of "having random digits" is in NO way intrinsic to "being a real number". I guess what he meant to say was "non-computable numbers"? So he's saying "in a finite volume, there can't be non-computable numbers"... or something?
Again: not a mathematician or a physicist, but this comes off as pretty crank:y to me. I would love to be corrected.