Paysapp, a worldwide payment system that allows you to send money as simple as texting a message like "pay 100 to George", available right now in Whatsapp, Telegram, Keybase, Matrix, Discord, Slack and Twitter, just add the Paysapp bot to your chats and type 'help' to start.
We're at a very early stage and looking for investors.
Worldwide, all 200 countries wherever there is internet.
Regarding regulations we are studying two possible scenarios, comply with all or simply Uberize the model and let people sell money for a fee. For the former we need tons of money, attorneys and on/off ramps with the banking world. For the latter we only would be the messaging transport and people would buy and sell money informally, that's the long tail of the unbanked and informal merchants.
The WhatsApp Commerce Policy states that businesses may not transact in the sale of real, virtual, or fake currency. Keyword: sale.
Does that discard the creation of remittance apps? That's not selling, that's just sending money between parties. I was thinking on sending money around the world using WhatsApp, is that allowed?
I counted eleven interstitial "advertising" breaks within an article on some site recently. I use adblock, so the label. was the only trace left, but that's still absolutely ridiculous, and is precisely why I'm doing same.
A corrupt human being can change one vote, or a few hundred if they're very industrious, in a paper ballot system. A corrupt human being can change every vote in an electronic ballot system. I would rather use the system where fraud is difficult and expensive and low-impact.
Corruptible humans will always be in charge, until Terminator. The question is, how much corruption are we willing to put up with, how would we know it is happening, and how robust are the apparatus for correcting those abuses?
God's number is zero and no matter what we do that sum will always be above zero. As we are programmed in our DNAs to survive, sustain and multiply, the average outcome will always be positive no matter how many bad apples. If to the contrary, we were programmed to self destroy, we would've been gone long time ago.
"Suppose there is a mapping from the natural numbers onto the decimals."
Infinity is a tricky subject.
There are infinite naturals, fractions and decimals but they are different kinds of infinities. If we define natural positives as N and both positive and negatives as the same infinities N * 2 (with a minus sign), we can safely say that decimals are simply all naturals multiplied by infinity N * N * N * 2 or N ^ 3 * 2 where for every single integer like 0, 1 or 2 there will be infinite decimals after the point prefixed by infinite zeroes too like .1 .01 .001 .0001 and even if N * 2 or N ^ 3 are equal to infinity (infinity because we can't measure it or at least not know its final boundary) both infinities are different.
Cardinality is the name given as a measure of the size of a set. The cardinality of the rationals is the same as the integers. The cardinality of the reals is larger than that of the integers.
There is an arithmetic of cardinal numbers and it is well understood if you accept the axiom of choice. For instance, using your notation, N*N = N and N^2 = N. You can read more here
> The cardinality of the rationals is the same as the integers.
If you combine N as all possible numerators with N as denominators you get that cardinality of Q = N * N
Also, I don't accept the diagonal argument as proof. Given all possible combinations of numbers, any given number will occur in that set no matter what. If you add special rules of course it falls apart and Cantor's argument is just a special rule.
If we use fruits as an example, taking a diagonal from their letters won't form a fruit either.
It might be worth your time to consider the possibility that it is likely that the whole of the mathematics profession is not wrong in this matter. Are there any professional mathematicians that agree with you? If pretty much the whole profession thinks you are wrong about something then it’s quite likely you are indeed wrong.
It’s worth pointing out that your logic on Q = N times N is a bit faulty too. Since you are counting things like 4/4 as different than 1/1. Even so you are correct that the cardinality of Q is N times N. This is because N times N = N.
> If we use fruits as an example, taking a diagonal from their letters won't form a fruit either.
It will, however, form a sequence of characters. The diagonalization argument requires all possible sequences to be valid, which isn't true for fruits.
I built some warehousing apps in VFP 20 years ago and they're still running fine. Every time I go ship something the owner asks me to prune and reindex the DB and that's it, another year running smooth.
I won't prove this here: for any digit, there exists an arbitrarily long sequence of the same digit repeating somewhere within infinite decimal expansion of Pi. Further, this happens infinitely throughout the expansion. Thus, when dealing with Pi exactly, this question does not have an answer.
However, since we're dealing with such a limited representation of only a few trillion digits, this may have an answer...
Edit: as @nightcracker points out, this is conjecture. It is not currently know as to whether or not Pi has that property. (I could have sworn I read a proof years back). Thanks for the correction.
With that said, it's not know as to whether or not this question has an answer.
"The digits" in Pi will not give you relevant information.
The universe doesn't care about the base of our numbering system, so if our system was octal the answer would be totally different and equally irrelevant.
If there is a fundamental numbering system, then it's binary, but I don't think it makes much sense to analize the binary (floating point?) representation of Pi.
We're at a very early stage and looking for investors.