Not really - you showed an _observation_ about the distribution of decimal digits in a very limited sample of a long (likely infinite) set, but then confidently presented a conclusion about the whole set drawn from this.

If you'll forgive the reductio ad absurdem: I could toss a coin once and post a misleading write up about how coin tosses land on heads 100% of the time. :)

Also notable: the description of your repo (at time of writing) is literally "Statistically significant proof that the digits of pi are not random". The word "proof" there does seem to contradict what you're saying in this message.

Not bullying by the way - I'm well familiar with how exciting it can be to find something cool. (And kudos for sharing)

But if you use terms like "statistically significant proof" then you're making claims / misleading statements (or just being clickbaity) rather than providing objective observations and _separare_ subjective hypetheses.

(IMO) a far more palatable alternative would be "I tried analysing the first N digits of pi with a statistical algorithm they're not evenly distributed." (ie. Just the facts, no claims) or if you want to retain the clickbait, "I used statistics to analyse the first N digits of pi.. you won't believe the 9,000th digit!"

As others have mentioned here: of course it's not random. We can predict the next digit with 100% accuracy. But even meeting you halfway and choosing to interpret your use of "random" as meaning "evenly distributed" it's a big reach