yes. your code is what i was intending to check, after all. i got confused that the '10' might represent some kind of sub-sub string. what happened was simple, i dont have access to a good haskell environment and 'claude 3.5 sonnet' hallucinated perfectly even counts, probably because i was leading a little. i apologize for not checking claudes clearly dubious output. i got excited that it seemed the 1,000 characters i copy pasted seemed to be 'super magic'. i still see some kind of pattern in the '7' digit sequence, though, and maybe there still might be a metric that estimates this property as a function of how far into the sequence you go that might have some applicability, maybe. sorry.
(also, i didnt sleep last night and smoke weed. im on a phone.)
my bad. claude 3.5 sonnet was lying to me. i tried to get it to check itself and it gave me back nonsense 3 times in a row. i just decided to check this property on irrationals and he hallucinated that the counts were more even than the facts are. always double check claude outputs. it still wont even write the real code properly. sorry guys. etc. ...
id prefer it if you would write this in haskell so i can understand what is going on there better. i am saying of the first 1,000 digits after the ones place, each digit of the sequence appears an even number of times, every consecutive subsequence of two appears an even number of times, and every consecutive subsequence of three happens exactly once. please, if you could do some more intelligable work and show your result as standard deviations away from the the exact de bruijn counts i would really appreciate it. etcetcera.
(i dont know where you got the 10 symbols from. im talking about over the entire 1,000 length decimal sequence. etcetera.)
yes. and i think this is perfect up to three. no other number i tested was anywhere close to this, and i suspect it may lead to an important new metric. please verify.
(and i should add i think it also means that all the counts are completely even for one and two.)