If the set of all strings of composite length is a regular language, you can use that to prove the set of all strings of prime length are also a regular language.
But it’s also easy to prove that the set of language of strings of prime length is not regular, and thus the language of strings of composite length also can’t be regular.
You got downvoted here but you’re absolutely right. It’s easy to prove that the set of strings with prime length is not a regular language using the pumping lemma for regular languages. And in typical StackExchange fashion, someone’s already done it.
Here’s their proof.
Claim 1: The language consisting of the character 1 repeated a prime number of times is not regular.
A further argument to justify your claim—
Claim 2: If the language described in Claim 1 is not regular, then the language consisting of the character 1 repeated a composite number of times is not regular.
Proof: Suppose the language described in Claim 2 is regular if the language described in Claim 1 is not. Then there must exist a finite-state automaton A that recognises it. If we create a new finite-state automaton B which (1) checks whether the string has length 1 and rejects it, and (2) then passes the string to automaton A and rejects when automaton A accepts and accepts when automaton A rejects, then we can see that automaton B accepts the set of all strings of non-composite length that are not of length 1, i.e. the set of all strings of prime length. But since the language consisting of all strings of prime length is non-regular, there cannot exist such an automaton. Therefore, the assumption that the language described in Claim 2 being regular is false.
Average Matt Parker code
“at least 2 characters repeated [at least] twice” implies the string’s length is divisible by a number greater than 1.
Yeah but it’s just so tempting… It validates so many inputs so easily…
They said—
A line with exactly 0 or 1 characters, or a line with a sequence of 1 or 3 or more characters, repeated at least twice
Note—
…or a line with a sequence of 1 or 3 or more characters, repeated at least twice
It should be—
…or a line with a sequence of 2 or more characters, repeated at least twice
The regex in the post will match “abab”. Their original description (line 2 of this comment) will not match “abab”.
It’s a line with a sequence of two or more characters repeated at least twice.
Yes, they’re similar, but from what I’ve heard, most UK building societies are basically the same as or worse than banks in terms of fees, rates, and service quality. In the US, most credit unions will absolutely spank the big banks on at least two of those, if not all three.
I will start. I’m in the United States.
Credit unions! Nearly half of all Americans are credit union members. They don’t seem to be popular in Europe and Asia. A credit union is a not-for-profit co-operative financial institution that essentially provides all the same services as a bank, except it’s run as a democratic institution with directors elected by the customers instead of as a profit maximisation machine for shareholders.
Explosives don’t seem smart. Why didn’t they poison the chocolate instead? The enemy opens the chocolate, sees nothing wrong with it, shares it with their mates, and then now you’ve got five casualties who are none the wiser. Is that against the rules of war or something?
I think every time a big leftist instance gets defederated, its users leave and move towards more mainstream instances. I remember lemmy.ml used to be somewhat neutral a year or so ago (I got banned there so here I am now on lemmy.world).
Overthrow the bougoisie
It is surging. It started from her being very unpopular to being about even now.
I bet money on this happening, won, and am pleased to report that the entire sum has been donated to the Harris campaign, courtesy of the Trump supporters that were dumb enough to bet against me.
Trump designs are a dime-a-dozen in silver rounds. I’ve come across at least two just from buying random amounts of them in bulk from billion dealers.
They are sold to suckers for way too much money and then are sold back to bullion dealers for a dollar fifty under their melt value so that the sucker in question can make the interest payment on their Ford F150. They eventually meet a gnarly end in someone’s furnace after a few years and are cast into some actually desirable silver jewellery or silver bars.
I saw these being talked about on r/silverbugs, Reddit’s silver-collecting community. There is definitely a higher-than-usual concentration of Trump supporters there and even they were lambasting it for being a dumb thing to buy.
The thing is, these can’t even legally be called “coins”. A coin is only called that if it’s made with sanction from the state. Privately-made coin-like objects are “rounds”. Silver rounds are pretty common and are basically all worth melt value. I have no doubt these “commemorative coins rounds” will meet their end five or ten years from now in someone’s backyard kiln who will unceremoniously melt them down and cast them into some nice jewellery or a silver figurine.
Edit: I actually have some Trump design silver rounds. Not official Trump products, of course (or maybe they are, IDK). They are very common and worth nothing more than melt value. I paid melt value of these two. I traded one of them to my former roommate who’s a Trump supporter for a cod.
Definitely going to keep the “never surrender” round that has his mugshot that they took after he surrendered though.
Rule #3: always assume the anonymous 4chan poster is making it up
It does not ignore any information.
The cost per kWh is the totality of all information. It is the end product. That is the total costs of everything divided by the number of kilowatt-hours of electricity produced.
I understand that you’re deeply invested in this argument, but you’ve lost. You’re repeating the same claim over and over, and when proven wrong, you just said “nuh uh” and pretended that nothing I said is true.
Nuclear energy can be cheaper than solar or wind. It is more reliable than solar and wind. It uses less land than solar or wind. All of these are known facts. That’s why actual scientists support expanding nuclear energy 2 to 1.
But people will still dislike it because they’re scared of building the next Three Mile Island or Fukushima. That, as I explained, is the reason why fewer nuclear plants are being built. Because the scientists, the ones who know the most about these, are not in charge. Instead, it’s the people in the last column that are calling the shots. Do not repeat this drivel of “iF nUcLeaR pOweR PlanTs So Good WhY aRen’T tHerE moRe of ThEM??”. I have explained why. It is widely known why. Your refusal to accept reality does not make it less real.
That is the end of the argument. I will not respond to anything else you say, because it is clear to me that no amount of evidence will cause you to change your mind. So go ahead, post your non-chalant reply with laughing emojis and three instances of “lol” or “lmao” and strut over the chessboard like you’ve won.
Because I don’t give a pigeon’s shit what you have to say any more.
So obviously I ended up in the middle of this bell curve. How would that cause the perception of the ball’s acceleration to differ?