The original question was not exactly about pi in base ten. It was about infinite non-repeating numbers. The comment answered the question by providing a counterexample to the proffered claim. It was perfectly good math.
You have switched focus to a different question. And that is fine, but please recognize that you have done so. See other comment threads for more information about pi itself.
I see that the context is a different one and i also understand formal logic (contrary to what the other comment on my post says)
It’s just that if the topic is pi, I find it potentially confusing (and not necessary) to construct a different example which is based on pi (pi in binary and interpreted as base 10) in order to show something, because one might associate this with the original statement.
While this is faulty logic to do so, why not just use an example which doesn’t use pi at all in order to eliminate any potential.
I did realize now that part of my post could be Interpreted in a way, that I did follow this faulty logic -> I didn’t
The original question was not exactly about pi in base ten. It was about infinite non-repeating numbers. The comment answered the question by providing a counterexample to the proffered claim. It was perfectly good math.
You have switched focus to a different question. And that is fine, but please recognize that you have done so. See other comment threads for more information about pi itself.
I see that the context is a different one and i also understand formal logic (contrary to what the other comment on my post says)
It’s just that if the topic is pi, I find it potentially confusing (and not necessary) to construct a different example which is based on pi (pi in binary and interpreted as base 10) in order to show something, because one might associate this with the original statement.
While this is faulty logic to do so, why not just use an example which doesn’t use pi at all in order to eliminate any potential.
I did realize now that part of my post could be Interpreted in a way, that I did follow this faulty logic -> I didn’t