This is techno

[[email protected]]

Convert WAV To BMP And Back

I've Hired someone off of rentacoder.com to work 24/7 for me on my
latest project. I am converting WAVs to BMps and back, so you can
photoshop sound. One of the other coders thought I just wanted him to
change the extension from WAV to BMP. Another coder brought up the
complexities of actually converting WAVs to JPGs and back again,
because JPGs are compressed. And someone else asked me how they could
actually convert it. It is easiest if we work with BMPs and WAVs
because if we worked with BMP image files we just have to get into the
binary code of the file, and swap the headers around. So as long as
photoshop thinks the WAV is a BMP file you will be able to see what it
looks like and modify it. But I don't expect a graphical representation
that looks like a traditional wav file. I expect a 1 dimensional
colorful psychedelic mess. That could be expanded into multiple
dimensions depending on the frequency of the sound in the WAV file. It
just depends on how many colors we have to work with and the frequency
of the sound in each sample of the WAV file.

It would be nice if we could do all of this live, and while I was
editing in photoshop it could show me a convenient display of what the
WAV file was intended to look like. But we will need to run experiments
to see how the file size of WAVs and BMPs relate to the headers. The
content of the files doesn't matter it is all 1s and 0s, the headers
determine the size.

I would like to be able to blend music in photoshop by mixing layers of
wav files. I can take two recordings of someone singing the same song,
and blend them together in photoshop. An example could be taking a
robot voice that sings a song, and then blending it with my voice while
I am singing to create a more realistic robot. This is one of the
techniques they are using to make music in holywood. This is techno.

The software I've been using to develop the idea is 010 Editor, which
is a Hex Editor that understands how to interpret binary file formats
and has a scripting side program that can let you make automatic
conversions between files. But my coder is writing raw machine code in
delphi that will work like any other program on the desktop.


audio code LPCM
Parameters 1 channels 8 bits
32000 Sampling Freq.
256 Bitrate kbps
WAV's made with tools on http://jsoto.posunplugged.com/audiotools.htm


1 sample
--------


:struct WAVRIFFHEADER header
: ID groupID[4] RIFF
: ID groupID[0] 82'R'
: ID groupID[1] 73'I'
: ID groupID[2] 70'F'
: id groupID[3] 70'f'
: long size 37
: ID riffType[4] WAVE
: ID riffType[0] 87'W'
: ID riffType[1] 65'A'
: ID riffType[2] 86'V'
: ID riffType[3] 69'E'
:
:struct FORMATCHUNk format
: ID chunkID[4] fmt
: ID chunkID[0] 102'f'
: ID chunkID[1] 109'm'
: ID chunkID[2] 116't'
: ID chunkID[3] 32' '
: long chunkSize 16
: short wFormatTag 1
: unsigned shortwChannels 1
: unsigned long dwSamplesPerSec 32000
: unsigned long dwAvgBytesPerSec 32000
: unsigned short wBlockAlign 1
: unsigned short wBitsPerSample 8
:
:struct DATACHUNK data
: ID chunkID[4] data
: ID chunkID[0] 100'd'
: ID chunkID[1] 97'a'
: ID chunkID[2] 116't'
: ID chunkID[3] 97'a'
: long chunkSize 1
: uchar samples[1]
: uchar samples[0] 0


10 sample
---------

:struct WAVRIFFHEADER header
: ID groupID[4] RIFF
: ID groupID[0] 82'R'
: ID groupID[1] 73'I'
: ID groupID[2] 70'F'
: id groupID[3] 70'f'
: long size 46
: ID riffType[4] WAVE
: ID riffType[0] 87'W'
: ID riffType[1] 65'A'
: ID riffType[2] 86'V'
: ID riffType[3] 69'E'
:
:struct FORMATCHUNk format
: ID chunkID[4] fmt
: ID chunkID[0] 102'f'
: ID chunkID[1] 109'm'
: ID chunkID[2] 116't'
: ID chunkID[3] 32' '
: long chunkSize 16
: short wFormatTag 1
: unsigned shortwChannels 1
: unsigned long dwSamplesPerSec 32000
: unsigned long dwAvgBytesPerSec 32000
: unsigned short wBlockAlign 1
: unsigned short wBitsPerSample 8
:
:struct DATACHUNK data
: ID chunkID[4] data
: ID chunkID[0] 100'd'
: ID chunkID[1] 97'a'
: ID chunkID[2] 116't'
: ID chunkID[3] 97'a'
: long chunkSize 10
: uchar samples[10]
: uchar samples[0] 0
: uchar samples[1] 0
: uchar samples[2] 0
: uchar samples[3] 0
: uchar samples[4] 0
: uchar samples[5] 0
: uchar samples[6] 0
: uchar samples[7] 0
: uchar samples[8] 0
: uchar samples[9] 0






100x100 pixels: 29.3 KB (30,056 bytes)
1x1 pixels: 60 bytes (60 bytes)


resulution 72 pixels/inch
Color Moder: RGB 8 Bit
Depth 24 Bit


- saved in photoshop -



1x1 BMP
-------

:struct BITMAPFILEhEADER bmfg
: CHAR bfType[2] BM
: DWORD bfSize 60
: WORD bfReserved1 0
: WORD bfReserved2 0
: DWORD bfOffBits 54
:
:struct BITMAPinfohEADER bmih
: DWORD biSize 40
: LONG biWidth 1
: LONG biHeight 1
: WORD biPlanes 1
: WORD biBitCount 24
: DWORD biCompression 0
: DWORD biSizeImage 6
: LONG biXPelsPerMeter 2834
: LONG biYPelsPerMeter 2834
: DWORD biClrUsed 0
: DWORD biClrImportant 0
:
:struct BITMApLINE lines[1]
: struct BITMApliNE lines[0]
: struct RGBTRIPPLE colors[1]
: struct RGBTRIPlE colors[0]
: UBYTE rgbBlUE 255
: UBYTE rgbGreen 255
: UBYTE rgbRed 255
: UBYTE padBytes[1]
: UBYTE padBytes[0] 0
:
:

100x100 BMP
-----------
:
:struct BITMAPFILEhEADER bmfg
: CHAR bfType[2] BM
: DWORD bfSize 30056
: WORD bfReserved1 0
: WORD bfReserved2 0
: DWORD bfOffBits 54
:
:struct BITMAPinfohEADER bmih
: DWORD biSize 40
: LONG biWidth 10
: LONG biHeight 10
: WORD biPlanes 1
: WORD biBitCount 24
: DWORD biCompression 0
: DWORD biSizeImage 30002
: LONG biXPelsPerMeter 2834
: LONG biYPelsPerMeter 2834
: DWORD biClrUsed 0
: DWORD biClrImportant 0
:
:struct BITMApLINE lines[1]
: struct BITMApliNE lines[0]
: struct RGBTRIPPLE colors[100]
: struct RGBTRIPlE colors[0] #FFFFFF
: UBYTE rgbBlUE 255
: UBYTE rgbGreen 255
: UBYTE rgbRed 255
: ...
:
: struct RGBTRIPlE colors[99] #FFFFFF
: UBYTE rgbBlUE 255
: UBYTE rgbGreen 255
: UBYTE rgbRed 255
: ...
:
: struct BITMApliNE lines[99]
: struct RGBTRIPPLE colors[100]
: struct RGBTRIPlE colors[0] #FFFFFF
: UBYTE rgbBlUE 255
: UBYTE rgbGreen 255
: UBYTE rgbRed 255
: ...
: struct RGBTRIPlE colors[99] #FFFFFF
: UBYTE rgbBlUE 255
: UBYTE rgbGreen 255
: UBYTE rgbRed 255
:
:

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

wrote:
> Convert WAV To BMP And Back
>
How about either:

a) Point us to a URL of your work
b) STFU

--
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[philicorda]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:20:16 -0700, CoreyWhite wrote:

> Convert WAV To BMP And Back
>
> I've Hired someone off of rentacoder.com to work 24/7 for me on my latest
> project. I am converting WAVs to BMps and back, so you can photoshop
> sound. One of the other coders thought I just wanted him to change the
> extension from WAV to BMP. Another coder brought up the complexities of
> actually converting WAVs to JPGs and back again, because JPGs are
> compressed. And someone else asked me how they could actually convert it.
> It is easiest if we work with BMPs and WAVs because if we worked with BMP
> image files we just have to get into the binary code of the file, and swap
> the headers around.

I've done this, by using headerless RAW files, and you get very distorted
and aliasy results. More often that not it sounds like white noise.

> So as long as photoshop thinks the WAV is a BMP file
> you will be able to see what it looks like and modify it. But I don't
> expect a graphical representation that looks like a traditional wav file.
> I expect a 1 dimensional colorful psychedelic mess. That could be
> expanded into multiple dimensions depending on the frequency of the sound
> in the WAV file. It just depends on how many colors we have to work with
> and the frequency of the sound in each sample of the WAV file.

A single sample of a wave file does not have a frequency.

I think what you might be looking for is a program called metasynth.
It displays a spectrogram of the audio that you can manipulate with
paints, spray, effects, cut'n'paste etc. You can do the equivalent of
photoshop effects, but the results are much more musical. It will also
input and output graphics files, so you could export from metasynth to
photoshop, manipulate it and re-import.


>
> It would be nice if we could do all of this live, and while I was editing
> in photoshop it could show me a convenient display of what the WAV file
> was intended to look like. But we will need to run experiments to see how
> the file size of WAVs and BMPs relate to the headers. The content of the
> files doesn't matter it is all 1s and 0s, the headers determine the size.
>
> I would like to be able to blend music in photoshop by mixing layers of
> wav files. I can take two recordings of someone singing the same song, and
> blend them together in photoshop. An example could be taking a robot voice
> that sings a song, and then blending it with my voice while I am singing
> to create a more realistic robot. This is one of the techniques they are
> using to make music in holywood. This is techno.

This is not how they do it in hollywood. They use metasynth.

>
> The software I've been using to develop the idea is 010 Editor, which is a
> Hex Editor that understands how to interpret binary file formats and has a
> scripting side program that can let you make automatic conversions between
> files. But my coder is writing raw machine code in delphi that will work
> like any other program on the desktop.

I would like to see raw machine code written in delphi. :)

Don't let me put you off, but I suggest looking into ffts, spectrograms
and how sound is visualised conventionally before going much further.

Else, writing the graphical sound editor from scratch may actually be
easier than using photoshop to do this.

[[email protected]]

Thank you for the link to metasynth, I wasn't aware of the software. I
could only hear on the radio and television that this is what they were
doing with sound. But metasynth hasn't been around since the beginning
of techno, and we have more power manipulating the raw bytes of the WAV
files. And trust me, working with WAV files is completely different
than RAW files, and it will work fine to convert to BMP. These are the
most fundemental formats. If you look at the example machine code for
the file format you can see how their is a frequency of sound in each
sample, mine are totally silent so they are all 0s. Each 0 represents
a color, in this case it would be black. So they convert directly.

When the software is ready I'll link everyone up to it. And we will
all have much more power creating music by manipulating the raw bytes
in photoshop, than we would using the structure of a program like
metasynth.

philicorda wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:20:16 -0700, CoreyWhite wrote:
>
> > Convert WAV To BMP And Back
> >
> > I've Hired someone off of rentacoder.com to work 24/7 for me on my latest
> > project. I am converting WAVs to BMps and back, so you can photoshop
> > sound. One of the other coders thought I just wanted him to change the
> > extension from WAV to BMP. Another coder brought up the complexities of
> > actually converting WAVs to JPGs and back again, because JPGs are
> > compressed. And someone else asked me how they could actually convert it.
> > It is easiest if we work with BMPs and WAVs because if we worked with BMP
> > image files we just have to get into the binary code of the file, and swap
> > the headers around.
>
> I've done this, by using headerless RAW files, and you get very distorted
> and aliasy results. More often that not it sounds like white noise.
>
> > So as long as photoshop thinks the WAV is a BMP file
> > you will be able to see what it looks like and modify it. But I don't
> > expect a graphical representation that looks like a traditional wav file.
> > I expect a 1 dimensional colorful psychedelic mess. That could be
> > expanded into multiple dimensions depending on the frequency of the sound
> > in the WAV file. It just depends on how many colors we have to work with
> > and the frequency of the sound in each sample of the WAV file.
>
> A single sample of a wave file does not have a frequency.
>
> I think what you might be looking for is a program called metasynth.
> It displays a spectrogram of the audio that you can manipulate with
> paints, spray, effects, cut'n'paste etc. You can do the equivalent of
> photoshop effects, but the results are much more musical. It will also
> input and output graphics files, so you could export from metasynth to
> photoshop, manipulate it and re-import.
>
>
> >
> > It would be nice if we could do all of this live, and while I was editing
> > in photoshop it could show me a convenient display of what the WAV file
> > was intended to look like. But we will need to run experiments to see how
> > the file size of WAVs and BMPs relate to the headers. The content of the
> > files doesn't matter it is all 1s and 0s, the headers determine the size.
> >
> > I would like to be able to blend music in photoshop by mixing layers of
> > wav files. I can take two recordings of someone singing the same song, and
> > blend them together in photoshop. An example could be taking a robot voice
> > that sings a song, and then blending it with my voice while I am singing
> > to create a more realistic robot. This is one of the techniques they are
> > using to make music in holywood. This is techno.
>
> This is not how they do it in hollywood. They use metasynth.
>
> >
> > The software I've been using to develop the idea is 010 Editor, which is a
> > Hex Editor that understands how to interpret binary file formats and has a
> > scripting side program that can let you make automatic conversions between
> > files. But my coder is writing raw machine code in delphi that will work
> > like any other program on the desktop.
>
> I would like to see raw machine code written in delphi. :)
>
> Don't let me put you off, but I suggest looking into ffts, spectrograms
> and how sound is visualised conventionally before going much further.
>
> Else, writing the graphical sound editor from scratch may actually be
> easier than using photoshop to do this.

[[email protected]]

Seriously, I really appreciate the link. Because now I'm getting
another idea. After I code my WAV <-> BMP converter, I can code a BMP
translater, to map the pixels in the image to another image that
represents different kinds of sound more directly. Like amplitude,
frequency, bass, etc. Good like man!


wrote:
> Thank you for the link to metasynth, I wasn't aware of the software. I
> could only hear on the radio and television that this is what they were
> doing with sound. But metasynth hasn't been around since the beginning
> of techno, and we have more power manipulating the raw bytes of the WAV
> files. And trust me, working with WAV files is completely different
> than RAW files, and it will work fine to convert to BMP. These are the
> most fundemental formats. If you look at the example machine code for
> the file format you can see how their is a frequency of sound in each
> sample, mine are totally silent so they are all 0s. Each 0 represents
> a color, in this case it would be black. So they convert directly.
>
> When the software is ready I'll link everyone up to it. And we will
> all have much more power creating music by manipulating the raw bytes
> in photoshop, than we would using the structure of a program like
> metasynth.
>
> philicorda wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:20:16 -0700, CoreyWhite wrote:
> >
> > > Convert WAV To BMP And Back
> > >
> > > I've Hired someone off of rentacoder.com to work 24/7 for me on my latest
> > > project. I am converting WAVs to BMps and back, so you can photoshop
> > > sound. One of the other coders thought I just wanted him to change the
> > > extension from WAV to BMP. Another coder brought up the complexities of
> > > actually converting WAVs to JPGs and back again, because JPGs are
> > > compressed. And someone else asked me how they could actually convert it.
> > > It is easiest if we work with BMPs and WAVs because if we worked with BMP
> > > image files we just have to get into the binary code of the file, and swap
> > > the headers around.
> >
> > I've done this, by using headerless RAW files, and you get very distorted
> > and aliasy results. More often that not it sounds like white noise.
> >
> > > So as long as photoshop thinks the WAV is a BMP file
> > > you will be able to see what it looks like and modify it. But I don't
> > > expect a graphical representation that looks like a traditional wav file.
> > > I expect a 1 dimensional colorful psychedelic mess. That could be
> > > expanded into multiple dimensions depending on the frequency of the sound
> > > in the WAV file. It just depends on how many colors we have to work with
> > > and the frequency of the sound in each sample of the WAV file.
> >
> > A single sample of a wave file does not have a frequency.
> >
> > I think what you might be looking for is a program called metasynth.
> > It displays a spectrogram of the audio that you can manipulate with
> > paints, spray, effects, cut'n'paste etc. You can do the equivalent of
> > photoshop effects, but the results are much more musical. It will also
> > input and output graphics files, so you could export from metasynth to
> > photoshop, manipulate it and re-import.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > It would be nice if we could do all of this live, and while I was editing
> > > in photoshop it could show me a convenient display of what the WAV file
> > > was intended to look like. But we will need to run experiments to see how
> > > the file size of WAVs and BMPs relate to the headers. The content of the
> > > files doesn't matter it is all 1s and 0s, the headers determine the size.
> > >
> > > I would like to be able to blend music in photoshop by mixing layers of
> > > wav files. I can take two recordings of someone singing the same song, and
> > > blend them together in photoshop. An example could be taking a robot voice
> > > that sings a song, and then blending it with my voice while I am singing
> > > to create a more realistic robot. This is one of the techniques they are
> > > using to make music in holywood. This is techno.
> >
> > This is not how they do it in hollywood. They use metasynth.
> >
> > >
> > > The software I've been using to develop the idea is 010 Editor, which is a
> > > Hex Editor that understands how to interpret binary file formats and has a
> > > scripting side program that can let you make automatic conversions between
> > > files. But my coder is writing raw machine code in delphi that will work
> > > like any other program on the desktop.
> >
> > I would like to see raw machine code written in delphi. :)
> >
> > Don't let me put you off, but I suggest looking into ffts, spectrograms
> > and how sound is visualised conventionally before going much further.
> >
> > Else, writing the graphical sound editor from scratch may actually be
> > easier than using photoshop to do this.

[Bob Cain]

wrote:
> Convert WAV To BMP And Back
>
> I've Hired someone off of rentacoder.com to work 24/7 for me on my
> latest project. I am converting WAVs to BMps and back, so you can
> photoshop sound.

Google gives 339,000 hits on:

audio "data visualization"

Might be something useful among all that.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

[Erwin Hessle]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> wrote:
> > Convert WAV To BMP And Back
> >
> How about either:
>
> a) Point us to a URL of your work
> b) STFU
>
> --
> Dirk

Too many choices.

Erwin Hessle, 8=3

[Tom]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Convert WAV To BMP And Back

Shut up. Go away.

[Chevdo]

In article om>,
says...
>
>An example could be taking a
>robot voice that sings a song, and then blending it with my voice while
>I am singing to create a more realistic robot. This is one of the
>techniques they are using to make music in holywood. This is techno.
>

Actually that's called a 'vocoder', and it doesn't require the use of
Photoshop.

But good luck with your experimentation. Personally I think you will find that
it is a waste of time and the money you are paying your 'coder'. But it's nice
that you are employing somebody.

[Chevdo]

In article >,
says...
>
>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:20:16 -0700, CoreyWhite wrote:
>
>> Convert WAV To BMP And Back
>>
>> I've Hired someone off of rentacoder.com to work 24/7 for me on my latest
>> project. I am converting WAVs to BMps and back, so you can photoshop
>> sound. One of the other coders thought I just wanted him to change the
>> extension from WAV to BMP. Another coder brought up the complexities of
>> actually converting WAVs to JPGs and back again, because JPGs are
>> compressed. And someone else asked me how they could actually convert it.
>> It is easiest if we work with BMPs and WAVs because if we worked with BMP
>> image files we just have to get into the binary code of the file, and swap
>> the headers around.
>
>I've done this, by using headerless RAW files, and you get very distorted
>and aliasy results. More often that not it sounds like white noise.
>

Yeah I was into that a long time ago, too, when I first got my hands on a copy
of Soundforge 3.0. I did find some 'hidden' wavs in various programs and
datasets, though. Not audio used in the program, but weird, short bits put
there by the author of the programs, presumably. I can't remember what they
said, though I still have one on my hard drive somewhere. They didn't make
sense, probably in-jokes.

[Chevdo]

In article . com>,
says...
>
>Thank you for the link to metasynth, I wasn't aware of the software. I
>could only hear on the radio and television that this is what they were
>doing with sound. But metasynth hasn't been around since the beginning
>of techno,

neither has Photoshop and bitmaps. What's your point?

Techno = Roland x0x units

[Chevdo]

In article >,
says...
>
>
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Convert WAV To BMP And Back
>
>Shut up. Go away.
>
>

I think what you mean is don't crosspost this to irrelevent groups.

[Jeff Findley]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Seriously, I really appreciate the link. Because now I'm getting
> another idea. After I code my WAV <-> BMP converter, I can code a BMP
> translater, to map the pixels in the image to another image that
> represents different kinds of sound more directly. Like amplitude,
> frequency, bass, etc. Good like man!

It's statements like this that make it sound like you don't have a clue how
sound is represented in a WAV file.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

[James Lehman]

If you really knew anything about what you are talking about, you would know
that there's about as much point as turning 100 years worth of lottery
numbers into music or a picture.

They have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

I am a software engineer. I know both the wave and the bmp file formats very
well.

You are really wasting your time.

James. :o)

[Richard Crowley]

"James Lehman" wrote ...
> If you really knew anything about what you are talking
> about, you would know that there's about as much point
> as turning 100 years worth of lottery numbers into music
> or a picture.

And both have been done (encoding data as music, etc.)
with predictable results (practically indistinguishable
from noise).

> They have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
>
> I am a software engineer. I know both the wave and
> the bmp file formats very well.
>
> You are really wasting your time.

Unquestionably. But you gotta admire blissful ignorance.
(or not :-)

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

James Lehman wrote:
> If you really knew anything about what you are talking about, you would know
> that there's about as much point as turning 100 years worth of lottery
> numbers into music or a picture.
>
> They have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
>
> I am a software engineer. I know both the wave and the bmp file formats very
> well.
>
> You are really wasting your time.
>
> James. :o)

Not entirely true (maybe), esp with the lottery numbers.
The eye is very good at spotting patterns.

--
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:41:07 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> wrote:

>James Lehman wrote:
>> If you really knew anything about what you are talking about, you would know
>> that there's about as much point as turning 100 years worth of lottery
>> numbers into music or a picture.
>>
>> They have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
>>
>> I am a software engineer. I know both the wave and the bmp file formats very
>> well.
>>
>> You are really wasting your time.
>>
>> James. :o)
>
>Not entirely true (maybe), esp with the lottery numbers.
>The eye is very good at spotting patterns.

The eye certainly can spot some kinds of patterns well. But not nearly
as well as purpose-designed software written and honed over decades to
spot those patterns or any others that the eye doesn't see. A whole
fringe industry has grown up to write software to spot the "patterns"
in lottery results, so far with no benefit, all inspired by the notion
that such patterns exist. Any set of uncorrelated random outcomes can
appear to have some local patterns, but that's as far as it goes.

Space communications systems can find signals buried in far higher
levels of noise, but only because they know what to look for. The only
real way to uncover a pattern in lottery results will be to know what
"fault" in the system caused the pattern. And then of course you'd
probably get richer just taking hush money to keep quiet about it.

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 07:23:53 +1000, wrote:

> A whole
>fringe industry has grown up to write software to spot the "patterns"
>in lottery results, so far with no benefit, all inspired by the notion
>that such patterns exist. Any set of uncorrelated random outcomes can
>appear to have some local patterns, but that's as far as it goes.

And they all miss the point that if it DID predict winning numbers it
would guarantee a minimal payout. Unless only one person bought the
program.

[Richard Crowley]

"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
> wrote:
>
>> A whole
>>fringe industry has grown up to write software to spot the "patterns"
>>in lottery results, so far with no benefit, all inspired by the notion
>>that such patterns exist. Any set of uncorrelated random outcomes can
>>appear to have some local patterns, but that's as far as it goes.
>
> And they all miss the point that if it DID predict winning numbers it
> would guarantee a minimal payout. Unless only one person bought the
> program.

And the folk who run the lottery use the same software to spot
and eliminate those "patterns" by changing out the balls, etc.

Lotteries are a tax on the mathematically-challenged.
They are a prime example of our governments acting
like parasites on their constituency.

[Romeo Rondeau]

> Lotteries are a tax on the mathematically-challenged.
> They are a prime example of our governments acting
> like parasites on their constituency.

This is why it's best to buy a lottery ticket as soon as the last one ends,
that way you fantasize for the maximum number of days about what you'll do
if you win. For $1, you can dream all week :-) It's really cheap
entertainment... after all, buying a lottery ticket only slightly increases
your chance of winning :-)

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:01:05 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

>> And they all miss the point that if it DID predict winning numbers it
>> would guarantee a minimal payout. Unless only one person bought the
>> program.
>
>And the folk who run the lottery use the same software to spot
>and eliminate those "patterns" by changing out the balls, etc.

If you're serious, and have proof, this will be a BIG scandal! Details
please?

[Don Pearce]

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:37:04 +0100, Laurence Payne
<lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:01:05 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:
>
>>> And they all miss the point that if it DID predict winning numbers it
>>> would guarantee a minimal payout. Unless only one person bought the
>>> program.
>>
>>And the folk who run the lottery use the same software to spot
>>and eliminate those "patterns" by changing out the balls, etc.
>
>If you're serious, and have proof, this will be a BIG scandal! Details
>please?

Also nonsense. The best way to guarantee no cheating in any of these
games (lottery, roulette etc) is to make them as fair and straight as
possible. Maximum randomness is the hardest to beat. A tilted roulette
wheel is just asking to be cleaned up.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Richard Crowley]

"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>
>>> And they all miss the point that if it DID predict winning numbers
>>> it
>>> would guarantee a minimal payout. Unless only one person bought the
>>> program.
>>
>>And the folk who run the lottery use the same software to spot
>>and eliminate those "patterns" by changing out the balls, etc.
>
> If you're serious, and have proof, this will be a BIG scandal! Details
> please?

Hardly seems "scandalous" unless you are trying to
flog that useless software. It would be a scandal if
the people running the lotteries *didn't* change the
balls to ensure randomness. I saw a TV news report
on how they decide which balls to change several
years ago on a slow news day. Didn't seem particularly
remarkable to me.

[Eeyore]

Richard Crowley wrote:

> "Laurence Payne" wrote ...
> > "Richard Crowley" wrote:
> >
> >>> And they all miss the point that if it DID predict winning numbers
> >>> it
> >>> would guarantee a minimal payout. Unless only one person bought the
> >>> program.
> >>
> >>And the folk who run the lottery use the same software to spot
> >>and eliminate those "patterns" by changing out the balls, etc.
> >
> > If you're serious, and have proof, this will be a BIG scandal! Details
> > please?
>
> Hardly seems "scandalous" unless you are trying to
> flog that useless software. It would be a scandal if
> the people running the lotteries *didn't* change the
> balls to ensure randomness. I saw a TV news report
> on how they decide which balls to change several
> years ago on a slow news day. Didn't seem particularly
> remarkable to me.

All the balls should be replaced together.

Graham

[Richard Crowley]

"Eeyore" wrote...
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>> "Laurence Payne" wrote ...
>> > "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>> >
>> >>> And they all miss the point that if it DID predict winning
>> >>> numbers
>> >>> it
>> >>> would guarantee a minimal payout. Unless only one person bought
>> >>> the
>> >>> program.
>> >>
>> >>And the folk who run the lottery use the same software to spot
>> >>and eliminate those "patterns" by changing out the balls, etc.
>> >
>> > If you're serious, and have proof, this will be a BIG scandal!
>> > Details
>> > please?
>>
>> Hardly seems "scandalous" unless you are trying to
>> flog that useless software. It would be a scandal if
>> the people running the lotteries *didn't* change the
>> balls to ensure randomness. I saw a TV news report
>> on how they decide which balls to change several
>> years ago on a slow news day. Didn't seem particularly
>> remarkable to me.
>
> All the balls should be replaced together.

Makes no sense to me. The whole point is to ensure that
no number comes up any more frequently than any other.
Changing all the balls at once just means starting over
from scratch. But then I don't really care, so there you are.

[[email protected]]

You have all been talking about it, but now you can download example
sound files I've been working with in photoshop using wav2bmp. I have
a screenshot of the program in action, but I want to make sure there
aren't any bugs before I release the software as a download.

I'm just discovering the limitations of using photoshop as an audio
tool. I have been able to begin blending two sound files made with a
vocoder in photoshop to create a fresh new mix. But you have to turn
up the volume a little, and I'm trying to find a way to minimize the
static. If you can help, or want to download the software let me know.
It is really novel and fun.

http://grimoire.genesismuds.com

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> wrote:
> > Convert WAV To BMP And Back
> >
> How about either:
>
> a) Point us to a URL of your work
> b) STFU
>
> --
> Dirk
>
> http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
> Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[philicorda]

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 05:48:50 -0700, Richard Crowley wrote:

> "Eeyore" wrote...
>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>> "Laurence Payne" wrote ...
>>> > "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>> And they all miss the point that if it DID predict winning numbers
>>> >>> it
>>> >>> would guarantee a minimal payout. Unless only one person bought
>>> >>> the
>>> >>> program.
>>> >>
>>> >>And the folk who run the lottery use the same software to spot and
>>> >>eliminate those "patterns" by changing out the balls, etc.
>>> >
>>> > If you're serious, and have proof, this will be a BIG scandal!
>>> > Details
>>> > please?
>>>
>>> Hardly seems "scandalous" unless you are trying to flog that useless
>>> software. It would be a scandal if the people running the lotteries
>>> *didn't* change the balls to ensure randomness. I saw a TV news report
>>> on how they decide which balls to change several years ago on a slow
>>> news day. Didn't seem particularly remarkable to me.
>>
>> All the balls should be replaced together.
>
> Makes no sense to me. The whole point is to ensure that no number comes up
> any more frequently than any other. Changing all the balls at once just
> means starting over from scratch. But then I don't really care, so there
> you are.

I thought the whole point was to make it random.
If the same number came up every week, it would be no less random. (Unless
someone was cheating...)

[Les Cargill]

philicorda wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 05:48:50 -0700, Richard Crowley wrote:
>
>
>>"Eeyore" wrote...
>>
>>>Richard Crowley wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
>>>>
>>>>> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>And they all miss the point that if it DID predict winning numbers
>>>>>>>it
>>>>>>>would guarantee a minimal payout. Unless only one person bought
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>program.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And the folk who run the lottery use the same software to spot and
>>>>>>eliminate those "patterns" by changing out the balls, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you're serious, and have proof, this will be a BIG scandal!
>>>>>Details
>>>>>please?
>>>>
>>>>Hardly seems "scandalous" unless you are trying to flog that useless
>>>>software. It would be a scandal if the people running the lotteries
>>>>*didn't* change the balls to ensure randomness. I saw a TV news report
>>>>on how they decide which balls to change several years ago on a slow
>>>>news day. Didn't seem particularly remarkable to me.
>>>
>>>All the balls should be replaced together.
>>
>>Makes no sense to me. The whole point is to ensure that no number comes up
>>any more frequently than any other. Changing all the balls at once just
>>means starting over from scratch. But then I don't really care, so there
>>you are.
>
>
> I thought the whole point was to make it random.
> If the same number came up every week, it would be no less random. (Unless
> someone was cheating...)
>
>

All the numbers are represented in the 'popcorn popper'. The event
that selects a ball is when the tube end is opened - closest
ball goes out. I'm pretty sure this is *extremely* random, but I
ain't hadda vett one for it.

--
Les Cargill

[Richard Crowley]

"Les Cargill" wrote ...
> All the numbers are represented in the 'popcorn popper'. The event
> that selects a ball is when the tube end is opened - closest
> ball goes out. I'm pretty sure this is *extremely* random, but I ain't
> hadda vett one for it.

But for whatever reason some balls weigh slightly less or
more than others and have a higher/lower chance than the
others of being selected. My recollection is that they run
100s of "test drawings" and sample the results to see if any
of the ball/numbers have statisticically higher or lower hits
than their peers. The balls that fall outside their criteria are
replaced to make them more evenly matched.

[Mr.T]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> > All the balls should be replaced together.

Agreed.

> Makes no sense to me. The whole point is to ensure that
> no number comes up any more frequently than any other.
> Changing all the balls at once just means starting over
> from scratch.

"Random" does *not* mean that all numbers should come up equally over any
finite time period, only an *infinite* one.
Any tampering to adjust the outcome, must make it non random by definition.
If the system is thought to be non random for any reason, then it should be
changed for one that is.

In practice, as long as it achieves the desired regulatory approval and
financial outcomes, I'm sure nobody cares.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> But for whatever reason some balls weigh slightly less or
> more than others and have a higher/lower chance than the
> others of being selected. My recollection is that they run
> 100s of "test drawings" and sample the results to see if any
> of the ball/numbers have statisticically higher or lower hits
> than their peers. The balls that fall outside their criteria are
> replaced to make them more evenly matched.

But how in hell can they perform an *infinite* number of tests to prove
randomness?
Put it this way, just because you flip a coin and it lands heads 20 times in
a row, doesn't mean it is not random, nor that the next flip will be a head
also.
Of course it would be enough to make you suspect something was amiss :-)

MrT.

[Richard Smol]

wrote:
> Convert WAV To BMP And Back
>
> I've Hired someone off of rentacoder.com to work 24/7 for me on my
> latest project. I am converting WAVs to BMps and back, so you can
> photoshop sound. One of the other coders thought I just wanted him to
> change the extension from WAV to BMP. Another coder brought up the
> complexities of actually converting WAVs to JPGs and back again,
> because JPGs are compressed. And someone else asked me how they could
> actually convert it. It is easiest if we work with BMPs and WAVs
> because if we worked with BMP image files we just have to get into the
> binary code of the file, and swap the headers around. So as long as
> photoshop thinks the WAV is a BMP file you will be able to see what it
> looks like and modify it. But I don't expect a graphical representation
> that looks like a traditional wav file. I expect a 1 dimensional
> colorful psychedelic mess. That could be expanded into multiple
> dimensions depending on the frequency of the sound in the WAV file. It
> just depends on how many colors we have to work with and the frequency
> of the sound in each sample of the WAV file.

What does any of this specifically have to do with techno? You could
use this technique in a lot of musical styles. It's also nothing really
new: tools that are specialized in converting images to sound and back
have been around for a while already, like MetaSynth and Coagula.

RS

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 15:14:48 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

>"Random" does *not* mean that all numbers should come up equally over any
>finite time period, only an *infinite* one.
>Any tampering to adjust the outcome, must make it non random by definition.
>If the system is thought to be non random for any reason, then it should be
>changed for one that is.

Someone started off by stating that if a short-term pattern emerged
the balls were tampered with to reverse it. This got modified into a
statement that sets of balls were carefully graded to be as identical
as possible. Let's be sure to be clear which of these statements
we're discussing.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Mr.T wrote:
> "Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
> ...
>> But for whatever reason some balls weigh slightly less or
>> more than others and have a higher/lower chance than the
>> others of being selected. My recollection is that they run
>> 100s of "test drawings" and sample the results to see if any
>> of the ball/numbers have statisticically higher or lower hits
>> than their peers. The balls that fall outside their criteria are
>> replaced to make them more evenly matched.
>
> But how in hell can they perform an *infinite* number of tests to prove
> randomness?
> Put it this way, just because you flip a coin and it lands heads 20 times in
> a row, doesn't mean it is not random, nor that the next flip will be a head
> also.
> Of course it would be enough to make you suspect something was amiss :-)
>
> MrT.
>

It is impossible to prove that *any* string of numbers is random.
The generation algorithm may simply be unknown.
This fact has major implications concerning limits to knowledge in science.

FFF
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[Mr.T]

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" > wrote in message
...
> > But how in hell can they perform an *infinite* number of tests to prove
> > randomness?

> It is impossible to prove that *any* string of numbers is random.

As I said, any *finite* string. (which is the same thing in the real world)
Nor that they are NOT part of a random sequence for that matter.

MrT.

[Richard Crowley]

"Mr.T" wrote ...

> In practice, as long as it achieves the desired regulatory approval
> and
> financial outcomes, I'm sure nobody cares.

I surely don't.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Mr.T wrote:
> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> But how in hell can they perform an *infinite* number of tests to prove
>>> randomness?
>
>> It is impossible to prove that *any* string of numbers is random.
>
> As I said, any *finite* string. (which is the same thing in the real world)
> Nor that they are NOT part of a random sequence for that matter.
>
> MrT.
>
>
It is definately possible to prove that a string is *not* random - all
one has to do is provide a data compression algorithm shorter that the
string.

FFF
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 22:09:20 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> wrote:

>It is definately possible to prove that a string is *not* random - all
>one has to do is provide a data compression algorithm shorter that the
>string.
A given string, although random, may display patterns.

The string may not have originally been stored in the most compact
form possible.

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 22:09:20 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> wrote:

>Mr.T wrote:
>> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> But how in hell can they perform an *infinite* number of tests to prove
>>>> randomness?
>>
>>> It is impossible to prove that *any* string of numbers is random.
>>
>> As I said, any *finite* string. (which is the same thing in the real world)
>> Nor that they are NOT part of a random sequence for that matter.
>>
>> MrT.
>>
>>
>It is definately possible to prove that a string is *not* random - all
>one has to do is provide a data compression algorithm shorter that the
>string.
>

Any finite length string can be generated by a purely random process,
so no such proof is possible.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 22:09:20 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> > wrote:
>
>> It is definately possible to prove that a string is *not* random - all
>> one has to do is provide a data compression algorithm shorter that the
>> string.
> A given string, although random, may display patterns.

'Although random' - how do you know?
You are making the assumption in order to derive that assumption.

> The string may not have originally been stored in the most compact
> form possible.

In which case it is not random according to one commonly used definition.

FFF
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 22:09:20 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> > wrote:
>
>> Mr.T wrote:
>>> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>> But how in hell can they perform an *infinite* number of tests to prove
>>>>> randomness?
>>>> It is impossible to prove that *any* string of numbers is random.
>>> As I said, any *finite* string. (which is the same thing in the real world)
>>> Nor that they are NOT part of a random sequence for that matter.
>>>
>>> MrT.
>>>
>>>
>> It is definately possible to prove that a string is *not* random - all
>> one has to do is provide a data compression algorithm shorter that the
>> string.
>>
>
> Any finite length string can be generated by a purely random process,
> so no such proof is possible.

It is not possible in the majority of cases.
However, it is impossible to prove it is impossible in all cases.
And how do you know such a string is generated by a 'purely random
process'? You are assuming the answer you require.

FFF
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 23:32:46 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> wrote:

>>> It is definately possible to prove that a string is *not* random - all
>>> one has to do is provide a data compression algorithm shorter that the
>>> string.
>> A given string, although random, may display patterns.
>
>'Although random' - how do you know?
>You are making the assumption in order to derive that assumption.

Given a string, it may be impossible to prove randomness. But this
does not prove there is no random method of generating strings.

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 23:32:46 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> wrote:

>
>> The string may not have originally been stored in the most compact
>> form possible.
>
>In which case it is not random according to one commonly used definition.

If "a,b,c...." is random, how is it made any less random by being
expressed as "Hay, Bee, See ....."?

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 23:32:46 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> > wrote:
>
>>>> It is definately possible to prove that a string is *not* random - all
>>>> one has to do is provide a data compression algorithm shorter that the
>>>> string.
>>> A given string, although random, may display patterns.
>> 'Although random' - how do you know?
>> You are making the assumption in order to derive that assumption.
>
> Given a string, it may be impossible to prove randomness. But this
> does not prove there is no random method of generating strings.

There is no known way of determining whether true randomness exists.
The universe may be superdeterministic.

FFF
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 23:32:46 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> > wrote:
>
>>> The string may not have originally been stored in the most compact
>>> form possible.
>> In which case it is not random according to one commonly used definition.
>
> If "a,b,c...." is random, how is it made any less random by being
> expressed as "Hay, Bee, See ....."?

A more apt example would be:
If "a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y, z" is random how
is it made any less random by being compressed to:
"the alphabet".

I'll leave that one up to you.

FFF
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[Laurence Payne]

>There is no known way of determining whether true randomness exists.
>The universe may be superdeterministic.

OK. Denying randomness altogether is a reasonable stance. But it
rather ends the discussion.

[Laurence Payne]

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 01:20:54 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> wrote:

>> If "a,b,c...." is random, how is it made any less random by being
>> expressed as "Hay, Bee, See ....."?
>
>A more apt example would be:
>If "a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y, z" is random how
>is it made any less random by being compressed to:
>"the alphabet".
>
>I'll leave that one up to you.

Not more apt. Just completely different.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Laurence Payne wrote:
>> There is no known way of determining whether true randomness exists.
>> The universe may be superdeterministic.
>
> OK. Denying randomness altogether is a reasonable stance. But it
> rather ends the discussion.

No, it illustrates my point.
Since we do not know whether there is any randomness at all in Nature we
cannot therefore say whether any string is random, even in principle.

Admittedly, contemporary science suggests that degrees of randomness
exists eg quantum state reduction. However, we are far from having a
complete picture. It may even be that a complete picture cannot be had
due to Church/Turing/Godel constraints on being able to prove that a
given data compression algorithm (which is what a scientific theory is)
is the shortest (except in trivial cases). And that's ignoring the
philosophical problems of how accurately that is a map of a 'real' reality.

FFF
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 23:34:55 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> wrote:

>>> It is definately possible to prove that a string is *not* random - all
>>> one has to do is provide a data compression algorithm shorter that the
>>> string.
>>>
>>
>> Any finite length string can be generated by a purely random process,
>> so no such proof is possible.
>
>It is not possible in the majority of cases.
>However, it is impossible to prove it is impossible in all cases.
>And how do you know such a string is generated by a 'purely random
>process'? You are assuming the answer you require.

You have this backwards - I do not need to prove such a thing. It is
the other side proving that the string is NOT random, so it is their
job to prove it such. There is no way of doing this. Even if I present
a result of ten consecutive 1's, there is no way to prove that this
did not come about through some random process.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Laurence Payne]

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 07:02:20 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

> Even if I present
>a result of ten consecutive 1's, there is no way to prove that this
>did not come about through some random process.

And the fact that this particular string can be described in a very
compact form says nothing about its randomness.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 23:34:55 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> > wrote:
>
>>>> It is definately possible to prove that a string is *not* random - all
>>>> one has to do is provide a data compression algorithm shorter that the
>>>> string.
>>>>
>>> Any finite length string can be generated by a purely random process,
>>> so no such proof is possible.
>> It is not possible in the majority of cases.
>> However, it is impossible to prove it is impossible in all cases.
>> And how do you know such a string is generated by a 'purely random
>> process'? You are assuming the answer you require.
>
> You have this backwards - I do not need to prove such a thing. It is
> the other side proving that the string is NOT random, so it is their
> job to prove it such. There is no way of doing this. Even if I present
> a result of ten consecutive 1's, there is no way to prove that this
> did not come about through some random process.
>
> d
>
I'm using the word 'proof' in a mathematical sense.

FFF
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 12:19:42 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 23:34:55 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>> It is definately possible to prove that a string is *not* random - all
>>>>> one has to do is provide a data compression algorithm shorter that the
>>>>> string.
>>>>>
>>>> Any finite length string can be generated by a purely random process,
>>>> so no such proof is possible.
>>> It is not possible in the majority of cases.
>>> However, it is impossible to prove it is impossible in all cases.
>>> And how do you know such a string is generated by a 'purely random
>>> process'? You are assuming the answer you require.
>>
>> You have this backwards - I do not need to prove such a thing. It is
>> the other side proving that the string is NOT random, so it is their
>> job to prove it such. There is no way of doing this. Even if I present
>> a result of ten consecutive 1's, there is no way to prove that this
>> did not come about through some random process.
>>
>> d
>>
>I'm using the word 'proof' in a mathematical sense.
>

So who do you think wasn't?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Laurence Payne]

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 12:19:42 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> wrote:

>I'm using the word 'proof' in a mathematical sense.

You can prove the process or prove the result. (Or try to :-)

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 13:38:39 +0100, Laurence Payne
<lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 12:19:42 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> wrote:
>
>>I'm using the word 'proof' in a mathematical sense.
>
>You can prove the process or prove the result. (Or try to :-)

In this context, if you prove that a finite sequence of numbers could
not be random, you have shown that it would be impossible for those
numbers to have arisen in a random fashion - they must have been
produced algorithmically. That is impossible for any finite string of
numbers, it is always possible for a finite sequence of numbers -
whatever they are - to have arisen from random causes. So no, however
you choose to define proof, you cannot prove this.

The nearest you could get is to show that it would be possible for
them to have been produced by a non-random process. That is a million
miles from proving that it happened that way.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Laurence Payne]

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 12:45:34 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

>>You can prove the process or prove the result. (Or try to :-)
>
>In this context, if you prove that a finite sequence of numbers could
>not be random, you have shown that it would be impossible for those
>numbers to have arisen in a random fashion - they must have been
>produced algorithmically.

As a random generator (should one exist) could, by definition, produce
ANY sequence of numbers, analysis of the sequence is irrelevant.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 12:19:42 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> > wrote:
>
>> I'm using the word 'proof' in a mathematical sense.
>
> You can prove the process or prove the result. (Or try to :-)

I'm saying that neither can be proved.

FFF
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> Laurence Payne wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 12:19:42 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I'm using the word 'proof' in a mathematical sense.
>>
>> You can prove the process or prove the result. (Or try to :-)
>
> I'm saying that neither can be proved.
>
> FFF
> Dirk
>
> http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
> Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmically_random_sequence

--
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[Mr.T]

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" > wrote in message
...
> > A given string, although random, may display patterns.
<snip>
> In which case it is not random according to one commonly used definition.

Ah there's the problem as usual. Simply one of definition. A mathematician
will say you are wrong, a statistician will agee with you.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" > wrote in message
...
> Since we do not know whether there is any randomness at all in Nature we
> cannot therefore say whether any string is random, even in principle.

Not true. Even if true randomness cannot exist in a finite universe, it can
still exist in theory.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" > wrote in message
...
> If "a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y, z" is random how
> is it made any less random by being compressed to:
> "the alphabet".

It isn't even slightly random at all, it repeats every 26 letters!

MrT.

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:08:57 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

>
>"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" > wrote in message
...
>> > A given string, although random, may display patterns.
><snip>
>> In which case it is not random according to one commonly used definition.
>
>Ah there's the problem as usual. Simply one of definition. A mathematician
>will say you are wrong, a statistician will agee with you.
>
>MrT.
>

A random process is one in which each possible outcome is equally
likely, and is not influenced in any way by any preceding outcome.
Randomness is a definition of the process, not the subjective result
of that process.

There is nothing in the definition of randomness that has anything to
say about what the resulting pattern should or should not look like.

An output string of finite length may or may not display a pattern.
Randomness has nothing to say about that.

An output string of infinite length will display no pattern - that is
a given for randomness.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Mr.T]

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" > wrote in message
...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmically_random_sequence

It's quite funny when someone quotes wikipedia as their supreme technical
reference.
Simply add your own definition to win any argument :-)

MrT.

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:16:19 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

>> If "a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y, z" is random how
>> is it made any less random by being compressed to:
>> "the alphabet".
>
>It isn't even slightly random at all, it repeats every 26 letters!

How do you know the next character wasn't going to be "s"? Or "2"?

[Mr.T]

"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:16:19 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>
> >> If "a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y, z" is random how
> >> is it made any less random by being compressed to:
> >> "the alphabet".
> >
> >It isn't even slightly random at all, it repeats every 26 letters!
>
> How do you know the next character wasn't going to be "s"? Or "2"?

Then it wouldn't be "the alphabet". And the series is either as he defined,
or it's not. I already stated that any seemingly non random sequence could
be part of an infinite random sequence. That sequence would *not* be
"compressed to the alphabet" though.

MrT.

[Willie K. Yee, MD]

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:08:57 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:


>Ah there's the problem as usual. Simply one of definition. A mathematician
>will say you are wrong, a statistician will agee with you.
>

. . . at least 95% of the time.

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 22:49:15 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

>Then it wouldn't be "the alphabet".

My point precisely. It's random. The first 26 characters just happen
to coincide with "the alphabet".

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Mr.T wrote:
> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Since we do not know whether there is any randomness at all in Nature we
>> cannot therefore say whether any string is random, even in principle.
>
> Not true. Even if true randomness cannot exist in a finite universe, it can
> still exist in theory.

And that's where it would stay, because in a superdeterministic universe
there would be no way of generating a random string.

--
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Mr.T wrote:
> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmically_random_sequence
>
> It's quite funny when someone quotes wikipedia as their supreme technical
> reference.
> Simply add your own definition to win any argument :-)

I wasn't quoting it as an authoritative source, but as a detailed
explanation of my argument.

--
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Mr.T wrote:
> "Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:16:19 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>>
>>>> If "a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y, z" is random how
>>>> is it made any less random by being compressed to:
>>>> "the alphabet".
>>> It isn't even slightly random at all, it repeats every 26 letters!
>> How do you know the next character wasn't going to be "s"? Or "2"?
>
> Then it wouldn't be "the alphabet". And the series is either as he defined,
> or it's not. I already stated that any seemingly non random sequence could
> be part of an infinite random sequence. That sequence would *not* be
> "compressed to the alphabet" though.

True.
And an infinite string will contain infinitely many finite strings that
do not seem at all random. In fact, it contains infinitely many strings
that, if used as a computer program, would generate the universe and
ourselves in full virtual reality.

--
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[Bob Cain]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> Mr.T wrote:
>> "Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:16:19 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If "a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y, z" is random how
>>>>> is it made any less random by being compressed to:
>>>>> "the alphabet".
>>>> It isn't even slightly random at all, it repeats every 26 letters!
>>> How do you know the next character wasn't going to be "s"? Or "2"?
>>
>> Then it wouldn't be "the alphabet". And the series is either as he
>> defined,
>> or it's not. I already stated that any seemingly non random sequence
>> could
>> be part of an infinite random sequence. That sequence would *not* be
>> "compressed to the alphabet" though.
>
> True.
> And an infinite string will contain infinitely many finite strings that
> do not seem at all random. In fact, it contains infinitely many strings
> that, if used as a computer program, would generate the universe and
> ourselves in full virtual reality.
>

Will an infinite random string contain all possible sub-strings?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 00:47:17 -0700, Bob Cain
> wrote:

>Will an infinite random string contain all possible sub-strings?
>

Maths doesn't allow you to divide one infinity by another - they
aren't equivalent.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Bob Cain wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> Mr.T wrote:
>>> "Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:16:19 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> If "a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y, z" is random how
>>>>>> is it made any less random by being compressed to:
>>>>>> "the alphabet".
>>>>> It isn't even slightly random at all, it repeats every 26 letters!
>>>> How do you know the next character wasn't going to be "s"? Or "2"?
>>> Then it wouldn't be "the alphabet". And the series is either as he
>>> defined,
>>> or it's not. I already stated that any seemingly non random sequence
>>> could
>>> be part of an infinite random sequence. That sequence would *not* be
>>> "compressed to the alphabet" though.
>> True.
>> And an infinite string will contain infinitely many finite strings that
>> do not seem at all random. In fact, it contains infinitely many strings
>> that, if used as a computer program, would generate the universe and
>> ourselves in full virtual reality.
>>
>
> Will an infinite random string contain all possible sub-strings?

Tricky one - I'm not sure what order of infinity that would be.

--
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 11:53:47 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> wrote:

>> Will an infinite random string contain all possible sub-strings?
>
>Tricky one - I'm not sure what order of infinity that would be.

"Orders of Infinity" strike me as a cop-out for a flawed concept.

Just as when physicists discovered the 500th (or whatever) elementary
particle - a left-handed ultramarine charmed quark or some such - it
might have occurred to them that just maybe they'd got it all wrong?

[David Carter]

Bob Cain wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> Mr.T wrote:
>>> "Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:16:19 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> If "a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y, z" is random how
>>>>>> is it made any less random by being compressed to:
>>>>>> "the alphabet".
>>>>> It isn't even slightly random at all, it repeats every 26 letters!
>>>> How do you know the next character wasn't going to be "s"? Or "2"?
>>> Then it wouldn't be "the alphabet". And the series is either as he
>>> defined,
>>> or it's not. I already stated that any seemingly non random sequence
>>> could
>>> be part of an infinite random sequence. That sequence would *not* be
>>> "compressed to the alphabet" though.
>> True.
>> And an infinite string will contain infinitely many finite strings that
>> do not seem at all random. In fact, it contains infinitely many strings
>> that, if used as a computer program, would generate the universe and
>> ourselves in full virtual reality.
>>
>
> Will an infinite random string contain all possible sub-strings?
>
>
> Bob


Would it? Set theory suggests it would - no?

carter

[David Carter]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 11:53:47 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> > wrote:
>
>>> Will an infinite random string contain all possible sub-strings?
>> Tricky one - I'm not sure what order of infinity that would be.
>
> "Orders of Infinity" strike me as a cop-out for a flawed concept.
>
> Just as when physicists discovered the 500th (or whatever) elementary
> particle - a left-handed ultramarine charmed quark or some such - it
> might have occurred to them that just maybe they'd got it all wrong?


Interesting point. I have wondered for a while if someone predicts a
particle, then designs exactly the experiment that would detect such a
particle if it existed, whether the particle would spring into existence
in response to the experiment.

of course I am not a scientist, I am a humble accountant but the thought
amused me briefly.

Carter

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:37:11 +0700, David Carter
> wrote:

>Interesting point. I have wondered for a while if someone predicts a
>particle, then designs exactly the experiment that would detect such a
>particle if it existed, whether the particle would spring into existence
>in response to the experiment.
>
>of course I am not a scientist, I am a humble accountant but the thought
>amused me briefly.

So for "particle" substitute "deduction" :-)

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

David Carter wrote:
> Bob Cain wrote:
>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>> Mr.T wrote:
>>>> "Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:16:19 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If "a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y, z" is
>>>>>>> random how
>>>>>>> is it made any less random by being compressed to:
>>>>>>> "the alphabet".
>>>>>> It isn't even slightly random at all, it repeats every 26 letters!
>>>>> How do you know the next character wasn't going to be "s"? Or "2"?
>>>> Then it wouldn't be "the alphabet". And the series is either as he
>>>> defined,
>>>> or it's not. I already stated that any seemingly non random sequence
>>>> could
>>>> be part of an infinite random sequence. That sequence would *not* be
>>>> "compressed to the alphabet" though.
>>> True.
>>> And an infinite string will contain infinitely many finite strings that
>>> do not seem at all random. In fact, it contains infinitely many strings
>>> that, if used as a computer program, would generate the universe and
>>> ourselves in full virtual reality.
>>>
>>
>> Will an infinite random string contain all possible sub-strings?
>>
>>
>> Bob
>
>
> Would it? Set theory suggests it would - no?

It would not contain the substring that enumerates pi, I suspect.

FFF
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:09:12 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> wrote:

>>> Will an infinite random string contain all possible sub-strings?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>>
>> Would it? Set theory suggests it would - no?
>
>It would not contain the substring that enumerates pi, I suspect.

It could well contain it to any given number of decimal places though.

[[email protected]]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> David Carter wrote:
> >> Will an infinite random string contain all possible sub-strings?
> >
> > Would it? Set theory suggests it would - no?
>
> It would not contain the substring that enumerates pi, I suspect.

Why not? What would exclude it from being included? Granted,
the probably of any given random substring of finite length being
a subset of the digits in pi is vanishingly small, it is NOT zero.
One could then srumise that an infinitely long set of random digits
would have the infinitely long value of pi as its subset. And, while
we're at it, e and any other transcendatal number, along with the
fine structure constant and such.

Skeaking of pi, it's intersting to note that the sequence of digits
making up pi survives a number of statistcal tests for randomness,
yet the sequence is fully determinant.

[Bob Cain]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 00:47:17 -0700, Bob Cain
> > wrote:
>
>> Will an infinite random string contain all possible sub-strings?
>>
>
> Maths doesn't allow you to divide one infinity by another - they
> aren't equivalent.
>
> d

Can't quite see how your answer applies to the question. Seems like a
yes or no would, however. Anyway, I really meant to ask: will an
infinite random string contain all possible _finite_ sub-strings?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

[Laurence Payne]

On 5 Sep 2006 13:40:05 -0700, wrote:

>> It would not contain the substring that enumerates pi, I suspect.
>
>Why not? What would exclude it from being included?

Well, unless we're back to different sorts of infinite... :_)

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 13:44:40 -0700, Bob Cain
> wrote:

>Can't quite see how your answer applies to the question. Seems like a
>yes or no would, however. Anyway, I really meant to ask: will an
>infinite random string contain all possible _finite_ sub-strings?

And must an infinite universe contain all imaginable objects? What
about un-imaginable ones? And impossible ones? (Before you start,
you KNOW curved space etc. are just cop-out arguments :-)

[Bob Cain]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 13:44:40 -0700, Bob Cain
> > wrote:
>
>> Can't quite see how your answer applies to the question. Seems like a
>> yes or no would, however. Anyway, I really meant to ask: will an
>> infinite random string contain all possible _finite_ sub-strings?
>
> And must an infinite universe contain all imaginable objects? What
> about un-imaginable ones? And impossible ones?

You got ahead of me. :-)

It does indeed seem to be the same question as whether or not all
possible quantum states of any finite volume must exist in an infinite
universe. If so, and if this one is infinite (which I don't yet
subscribe to), then all the mystery about how something as utterly
improbable as what we are immersed in could have happened. It did
because, however improbable, it was obviously a possibility and that's
all that is required.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled whatever before mother steps in
to slap my naughty fingers.

> (Before you start,
> you KNOW curved space etc. are just cop-out arguments :-)

:-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Bob Cain wrote:
> Laurence Payne wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 13:44:40 -0700, Bob Cain
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Can't quite see how your answer applies to the question. Seems like a
>>> yes or no would, however. Anyway, I really meant to ask: will an
>>> infinite random string contain all possible _finite_ sub-strings?
>> And must an infinite universe contain all imaginable objects? What
>> about un-imaginable ones? And impossible ones?
>
> You got ahead of me. :-)
>
> It does indeed seem to be the same question as whether or not all
> possible quantum states of any finite volume must exist in an infinite
> universe. If so, and if this one is infinite (which I don't yet
> subscribe to), then all the mystery about how something as utterly
> improbable as what we are immersed in could have happened. It did
> because, however improbable, it was obviously a possibility and that's
> all that is required.
>
> Now, back to your regularly scheduled whatever before mother steps in
> to slap my naughty fingers.
>
>> (Before you start,
>> you KNOW curved space etc. are just cop-out arguments :-)
>
> :-)
>
>
> Bob

All Universes Hypothesis
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe_frames.html

This is also very interesting
http://www.cs.umaine.edu/~chaitin/lm.html

FFF
Dirk

--
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[David Carter]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> David Carter wrote:
>> Bob Cain wrote:
>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>> Mr.T wrote:
>>>>> "Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:16:19 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If "a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y, z" is
>>>>>>>> random how
>>>>>>>> is it made any less random by being compressed to:
>>>>>>>> "the alphabet".
>>>>>>> It isn't even slightly random at all, it repeats every 26 letters!
>>>>>> How do you know the next character wasn't going to be "s"? Or "2"?
>>>>> Then it wouldn't be "the alphabet". And the series is either as he
>>>>> defined,
>>>>> or it's not. I already stated that any seemingly non random sequence
>>>>> could
>>>>> be part of an infinite random sequence. That sequence would *not* be
>>>>> "compressed to the alphabet" though.
>>>> True.
>>>> And an infinite string will contain infinitely many finite strings that
>>>> do not seem at all random. In fact, it contains infinitely many strings
>>>> that, if used as a computer program, would generate the universe and
>>>> ourselves in full virtual reality.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Will an infinite random string contain all possible sub-strings?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>>
>> Would it? Set theory suggests it would - no?
>
> It would not contain the substring that enumerates pi, I suspect.
>
> FFF
> Dirk
>
> http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
> Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM


Or any other non-rational numbers. Nor i for that matter. Although it
wasnt stated, I assumed we were talking about real integers.

Carter

[Mr.T]

"Bob Cain" > wrote in message
...
> >> Will an infinite random string contain all possible sub-strings?
> >
> > Maths doesn't allow you to divide one infinity by another - they
> > aren't equivalent.

> Can't quite see how your answer applies to the question. Seems like a
> yes or no would, however. Anyway, I really meant to ask: will an
> infinite random string contain all possible _finite_ sub-strings?

In that case the answer is yes, because given a finite string length, there
must be a finite number of unique combinations.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Bob Cain" > wrote in message
...
> Laurence Payne wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 13:44:40 -0700, Bob Cain
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> Can't quite see how your answer applies to the question. Seems like a
> >> yes or no would, however. Anyway, I really meant to ask: will an
> >> infinite random string contain all possible _finite_ sub-strings?
> >
> > And must an infinite universe contain all imaginable objects? What
> > about un-imaginable ones? And impossible ones?
>
> You got ahead of me. :-)
>
> It does indeed seem to be the same question as whether or not all
> possible quantum states of any finite volume must exist in an infinite
> universe. If so, and if this one is infinite (which I don't yet
> subscribe to), then all the mystery about how something as utterly
> improbable as what we are immersed in could have happened. It did
> because, however improbable, it was obviously a possibility and that's
> all that is required.

Sounds like Douglas Adams infinite probability drive :-)

MrT.

[Bob Cain]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> Bob Cain wrote:
>
> All Universes Hypothesis
> http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe_frames.html

That about covers it. :-) Great link, thanks.

> This is also very interesting
> http://www.cs.umaine.edu/~chaitin/lm.html

I used to work at Watson and just walking by Chaitin's office made my
brain hurt. I have a couple of his books but am saving them for
retirement.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Bob Cain wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> Bob Cain wrote:
>>
>> All Universes Hypothesis
>> http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe_frames.html
>
> That about covers it. :-) Great link, thanks.
>
>> This is also very interesting
>> http://www.cs.umaine.edu/~chaitin/lm.html
>
> I used to work at Watson and just walking by Chaitin's office made my
> brain hurt. I have a couple of his books but am saving them for
> retirement.
>
>
> Bob

I rather like the AUH.
IMO it makes a lot more sense to ask 'why just this' rather than 'why
this'.

FFF
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

David Carter wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> David Carter wrote:
>>> Bob Cain wrote:
>>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>>> Mr.T wrote:
>>>>>> "Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:16:19 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If "a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y, z" is
>>>>>>>>> random how
>>>>>>>>> is it made any less random by being compressed to:
>>>>>>>>> "the alphabet".
>>>>>>>> It isn't even slightly random at all, it repeats every 26 letters!
>>>>>>> How do you know the next character wasn't going to be "s"? Or "2"?
>>>>>> Then it wouldn't be "the alphabet". And the series is either as he
>>>>>> defined,
>>>>>> or it's not. I already stated that any seemingly non random sequence
>>>>>> could
>>>>>> be part of an infinite random sequence. That sequence would *not* be
>>>>>> "compressed to the alphabet" though.
>>>>> True.
>>>>> And an infinite string will contain infinitely many finite strings
>>>>> that
>>>>> do not seem at all random. In fact, it contains infinitely many
>>>>> strings
>>>>> that, if used as a computer program, would generate the universe and
>>>>> ourselves in full virtual reality.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Will an infinite random string contain all possible sub-strings?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>>> Would it? Set theory suggests it would - no?
>>
>> It would not contain the substring that enumerates pi, I suspect.
>>
>> FFF
>> Dirk
>>
>> http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
>> Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM
>
>
> Or any other non-rational numbers. Nor i for that matter. Although it
> wasnt stated, I assumed we were talking about real integers.

I rather like the idea that Pi embodies the code that simulates the
universe (if run on an arbitrary, rather fast, machine).

--
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[[email protected]]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> > Or any other non-rational numbers. Nor i for that matter. Although it
> > wasnt stated, I assumed we were talking about real integers.
>
> I rather like the idea that Pi embodies the code that simulates the
> universe (if run on an arbitrary, rather fast, machine).

Yes, well the keyword here is "arbitrary." The design specs
for such a computer would be:

"Simulates universe when instruction code = pi."

This "arbitrary" machine need have only a single operand. Think
of the machine language programming manual:

OPERANDS

Mnemonic: PI
Opcode: 3.1415926535....
Description: simulates universe

Yep, that'll do it, for sure!

Be a bitch to build it though.

It'd be a lot easier just to let some quantum process
tunnel in a false vacuum, hit inflation, and the rest, as
we will eventually be heard to say 20 billion years
hence, will be history.

[David Carter]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> David Carter wrote:
>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>> David Carter wrote:
>>>> Bob Cain wrote:
>>>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>>>> Mr.T wrote:
>>>>>>> "Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:16:19 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If "a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y, z" is
>>>>>>>>>> random how
>>>>>>>>>> is it made any less random by being compressed to:
>>>>>>>>>> "the alphabet".
>>>>>>>>> It isn't even slightly random at all, it repeats every 26 letters!
>>>>>>>> How do you know the next character wasn't going to be "s"? Or
>>>>>>>> "2"?
>>>>>>> Then it wouldn't be "the alphabet". And the series is either as he
>>>>>>> defined,
>>>>>>> or it's not. I already stated that any seemingly non random sequence
>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>> be part of an infinite random sequence. That sequence would *not* be
>>>>>>> "compressed to the alphabet" though.
>>>>>> True.
>>>>>> And an infinite string will contain infinitely many finite strings
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> do not seem at all random. In fact, it contains infinitely many
>>>>>> strings
>>>>>> that, if used as a computer program, would generate the universe and
>>>>>> ourselves in full virtual reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Will an infinite random string contain all possible sub-strings?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would it? Set theory suggests it would - no?
>>>
>>> It would not contain the substring that enumerates pi, I suspect.
>>>
>>> FFF
>>> Dirk
>>>
>>> http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
>>> Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM
>>
>>
>> Or any other non-rational numbers. Nor i for that matter. Although it
>> wasnt stated, I assumed we were talking about real integers.
>
> I rather like the idea that Pi embodies the code that simulates the
> universe (if run on an arbitrary, rather fast, machine).
>


Well in a way you are right though it cannot simulate the universe, it
does describe the relationship between the circumference of a circle and
the centre. in this respect it can be held as a symbol fr creation.

The Divine name ALHIM which characterises the difference between
Chockmah and Binah can also represent Pi.

Carter

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

David Carter wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> David Carter wrote:
>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>> David Carter wrote:
>>>>> Bob Cain wrote:
>>>>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>>>>> Mr.T wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:16:19 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If "a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y, z" is
>>>>>>>>>>> random how
>>>>>>>>>>> is it made any less random by being compressed to:
>>>>>>>>>>> "the alphabet".
>>>>>>>>>> It isn't even slightly random at all, it repeats every 26
>>>>>>>>>> letters!
>>>>>>>>> How do you know the next character wasn't going to be "s"? Or
>>>>>>>>> "2"?
>>>>>>>> Then it wouldn't be "the alphabet". And the series is either as he
>>>>>>>> defined,
>>>>>>>> or it's not. I already stated that any seemingly non random
>>>>>>>> sequence
>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>> be part of an infinite random sequence. That sequence would
>>>>>>>> *not* be
>>>>>>>> "compressed to the alphabet" though.
>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>> And an infinite string will contain infinitely many finite
>>>>>>> strings that
>>>>>>> do not seem at all random. In fact, it contains infinitely many
>>>>>>> strings
>>>>>>> that, if used as a computer program, would generate the universe and
>>>>>>> ourselves in full virtual reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Will an infinite random string contain all possible sub-strings?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Would it? Set theory suggests it would - no?
>>>>
>>>> It would not contain the substring that enumerates pi, I suspect.
>>>>
>>>> FFF
>>>> Dirk
>>>>
>>>> http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
>>>> Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM
>>>
>>>
>>> Or any other non-rational numbers. Nor i for that matter. Although it
>>> wasnt stated, I assumed we were talking about real integers.
>>
>> I rather like the idea that Pi embodies the code that simulates the
>> universe (if run on an arbitrary, rather fast, machine).
>>
>
>
> Well in a way you are right though it cannot simulate the universe, it
> does describe the relationship between the circumference of a circle and
> the centre. in this respect it can be held as a symbol fr creation.
>
> The Divine name ALHIM which characterises the difference between
> Chockmah and Binah can also represent Pi.

Pi (which is infinite in extent) and passes most tests for randomness.
Therefore it may well contain a long but finite sequence which, used as
machine code, would simulate the entire visible (finite) universe.

Infinity is BIG, especially at the fat end, even though it starts off
small...

FFF
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[David Carter]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> David Carter wrote:
>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>> David Carter wrote:
>>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>>> David Carter wrote:
>>>>>> Bob Cain wrote:
>>>>>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mr.T wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:16:19 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If "a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y, z" is
>>>>>>>>>>>> random how
>>>>>>>>>>>> is it made any less random by being compressed to:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "the alphabet".
>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't even slightly random at all, it repeats every 26
>>>>>>>>>>> letters!
>>>>>>>>>> How do you know the next character wasn't going to be "s"?
>>>>>>>>>> Or "2"?
>>>>>>>>> Then it wouldn't be "the alphabet". And the series is either as he
>>>>>>>>> defined,
>>>>>>>>> or it's not. I already stated that any seemingly non random
>>>>>>>>> sequence
>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>> be part of an infinite random sequence. That sequence would
>>>>>>>>> *not* be
>>>>>>>>> "compressed to the alphabet" though.
>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>> And an infinite string will contain infinitely many finite
>>>>>>>> strings that
>>>>>>>> do not seem at all random. In fact, it contains infinitely many
>>>>>>>> strings
>>>>>>>> that, if used as a computer program, would generate the universe
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> ourselves in full virtual reality.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Will an infinite random string contain all possible sub-strings?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would it? Set theory suggests it would - no?
>>>>>
>>>>> It would not contain the substring that enumerates pi, I suspect.
>>>>>
>>>>> FFF
>>>>> Dirk
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
>>>>> Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or any other non-rational numbers. Nor i for that matter. Although
>>>> it wasnt stated, I assumed we were talking about real integers.
>>>
>>> I rather like the idea that Pi embodies the code that simulates the
>>> universe (if run on an arbitrary, rather fast, machine).
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well in a way you are right though it cannot simulate the universe, it
>> does describe the relationship between the circumference of a circle
>> and the centre. in this respect it can be held as a symbol fr creation.
>>
>> The Divine name ALHIM which characterises the difference between
>> Chockmah and Binah can also represent Pi.
>
> Pi (which is infinite in extent) and passes most tests for randomness.
> Therefore it may well contain a long but finite sequence which, used as
> machine code, would simulate the entire visible (finite) universe.
>
> Infinity is BIG, especially at the fat end, even though it starts off
> small...
>
> FFF
> Dirk
>
> http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
> Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM


Sure, this is reminiscent of the monkeys in a junkyard. A reasonable
theory but of little value. I prefer to take the value I can get.

Carter

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

David Carter wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> David Carter wrote:
>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>> David Carter wrote:
>>>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>>>> David Carter wrote:
>>>>>>> Bob Cain wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Mr.T wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:16:19 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If "a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y, z" is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> random how
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is it made any less random by being compressed to:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "the alphabet".
>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't even slightly random at all, it repeats every 26
>>>>>>>>>>>> letters!
>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know the next character wasn't going to be "s"?
>>>>>>>>>>> Or "2"?
>>>>>>>>>> Then it wouldn't be "the alphabet". And the series is either
>>>>>>>>>> as he
>>>>>>>>>> defined,
>>>>>>>>>> or it's not. I already stated that any seemingly non random
>>>>>>>>>> sequence
>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>> be part of an infinite random sequence. That sequence would
>>>>>>>>>> *not* be
>>>>>>>>>> "compressed to the alphabet" though.
>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>> And an infinite string will contain infinitely many finite
>>>>>>>>> strings that
>>>>>>>>> do not seem at all random. In fact, it contains infinitely many
>>>>>>>>> strings
>>>>>>>>> that, if used as a computer program, would generate the
>>>>>>>>> universe and
>>>>>>>>> ourselves in full virtual reality.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Will an infinite random string contain all possible sub-strings?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would it? Set theory suggests it would - no?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would not contain the substring that enumerates pi, I suspect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FFF
>>>>>> Dirk
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
>>>>>> Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or any other non-rational numbers. Nor i for that matter. Although
>>>>> it wasnt stated, I assumed we were talking about real integers.
>>>>
>>>> I rather like the idea that Pi embodies the code that simulates the
>>>> universe (if run on an arbitrary, rather fast, machine).
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well in a way you are right though it cannot simulate the universe,
>>> it does describe the relationship between the circumference of a
>>> circle and the centre. in this respect it can be held as a symbol fr
>>> creation.
>>>
>>> The Divine name ALHIM which characterises the difference between
>>> Chockmah and Binah can also represent Pi.
>>
>> Pi (which is infinite in extent) and passes most tests for randomness.
>> Therefore it may well contain a long but finite sequence which, used
>> as machine code, would simulate the entire visible (finite) universe.
>>
>> Infinity is BIG, especially at the fat end, even though it starts off
>> small...
>>
>> http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
>> Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM
>
>
> Sure, this is reminiscent of the monkeys in a junkyard. A reasonable
> theory but of little value. I prefer to take the value I can get.

The 'monkeys in a junkyard' question is quite amenable to a statistical
analysis. And the odds are finite, which means Pi contains infinitely
many monkeys operating forever.

--
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[Bob Cain]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

> I rather like the AUH.
> IMO it makes a lot more sense to ask 'why just this' rather than 'why
> this'.

How does AUH address the former rather than the latter?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Bob Cain wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>
>> I rather like the AUH.
>> IMO it makes a lot more sense to ask 'why just this' rather than 'why
>> this'.
>
> How does AUH address the former rather than the latter?

Well, one of the constraints that must be imposed on the selection of
all possible universes is conditions for intelligent life to perceive
them. So there is obviously an anthropic selection effect for starters.

For example, simple 'triangle universes' would not be complex enough to
give rise to intelligence.

--
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[Randy Yates]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > writes:
> [...]
> Pi ... is infinite in extent ...

Not in base pi. In base pi, pi = 1. :)
--
% Randy Yates % "I met someone who looks alot like you,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % she does the things you do,
%%% 919-577-9882 % but she is an IBM."
%%%% > % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[Bob Cain]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> Bob Cain wrote:
>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>
>>> I rather like the AUH.
>>> IMO it makes a lot more sense to ask 'why just this' rather than 'why
>>> this'.
>>
>> How does AUH address the former rather than the latter?
>
> Well, one of the constraints that must be imposed on the selection of
> all possible universes is conditions for intelligent life to perceive
> them. So there is obviously an anthropic selection effect for starters.

I was remaining within what Tegmark calls Level I. He says that with
inflation (which requires infinite extent as it is formulated) and
quantum fluctuation there are bound to be instances and repeats of
this or any possible quantum state of a Hubble volume within the Level
I universe. The only constraints that are imposed at Level I are the
values we see for the fundamental constants. Level I assumes that the
universe is isotropic in that regard. Since we live in a
demonstration of an adequate state, it was inevitable. That may be
what the "strong" anthropic principle requires, I don't remember.

As I read Tegmark, there is no need at all for anthropic selection
since, one way or another, all possible states are "explored"
(redundantly) even at Level I. Selection implies a narrowing,
inflation implies the opposite.

BTW, thanks again for that link.

> For example, simple 'triangle universes' would not be complex enough to
> give rise to intelligence.

Whooosh again. :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Randy Yates wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > writes:
>> [...]
>> Pi ... is infinite in extent ...
>
> Not in base pi. In base pi, pi = 1. :)

Then 1 is infinite in extent.

--
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Bob Cain wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> Bob Cain wrote:
>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>
>>>> I rather like the AUH.
>>>> IMO it makes a lot more sense to ask 'why just this' rather than 'why
>>>> this'.
>>> How does AUH address the former rather than the latter?
>> Well, one of the constraints that must be imposed on the selection of
>> all possible universes is conditions for intelligent life to perceive
>> them. So there is obviously an anthropic selection effect for starters.
>
> I was remaining within what Tegmark calls Level I. He says that with
> inflation (which requires infinite extent as it is formulated) and
> quantum fluctuation there are bound to be instances and repeats of
> this or any possible quantum state of a Hubble volume within the Level
> I universe. The only constraints that are imposed at Level I are the
> values we see for the fundamental constants. Level I assumes that the
> universe is isotropic in that regard. Since we live in a
> demonstration of an adequate state, it was inevitable. That may be
> what the "strong" anthropic principle requires, I don't remember.
>
> As I read Tegmark, there is no need at all for anthropic selection
> since, one way or another, all possible states are "explored"
> (redundantly) even at Level I. Selection implies a narrowing,
> inflation implies the opposite.
>
> BTW, thanks again for that link.
>
>> For example, simple 'triangle universes' would not be complex enough to
>> give rise to intelligence.
>
> Whooosh again. :-)

If Tegmark is correct, then there are an infinite number of versions of
this universe, and it starts to look a bit like the Many Worlds
Interpretation (but is apparently unrelated).

FFF
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[Randy Yates]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > writes:

> Randy Yates wrote:
>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > writes:
>>> [...]
>>> Pi ... is infinite in extent ...
>> Not in base pi. In base pi, pi = 1. :)
>
> Then 1 is infinite in extent.

cake, eat.
--
% Randy Yates % "She's sweet on Wagner-I think she'd die for Beethoven.
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and
%%% 919-577-9882 % Verdi's always creepin' from her room."
%%%% > % "Rockaria", *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

[[email protected]]

Randy Yates wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > writes:
> > [...]
> > Pi ... is infinite in extent ...
>
> Not in base pi. In base pi, pi = 1. :)

Which is a VERY good point. It demonstrates that pi
itself is NOT 'infinite in extent," it's merely that the
REPRESENTATION of pi that result through our choice
of a particular symbol-based system is incoveniently
large. We universally chose a represntation, or a
"modeling" system, if you will, based on a power-of-ten
hierarchy which can represent many values exactly, but
which can only represent some approximately. That's
not a property of those few values, per se, but a property
of the symbol system we chose to represent it. Randy
quite validly points to a symbol system which can, with
great compactness, represnet pi precisely, but one that
fails to represent, say, integers with perfect accuracy.

In a similar vein, it is not possible to represent fractional
values in binary notations if they are not based on appropriate
powers of 2. The decimal value of 1/10 cannot be represent
accurately by a finite string of binary digits, while 10 can.
10, for example, is imply the sum of 2^3 + 2^1 (8+2), but
try doing the same for 1/10: It's smaller than 1/8, bigger
that 1/16, so it must be a sum of 1/16 and smaller
fractions. Unfortunately, it takes an infinite series of
reciprocal power-of-two fractions to precisely equal
1/10.

1/16 + 1/32 = 3/32 = 0.09375, 6% low,

1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64 = 7/64 = 0.109375, 9% high

1/16 + 1/32 + 1/128 = 13/128 = .1015625, 1% high

1/16 + 1/32 +1/256 = 25/256 = 0.09765625, 2.3% low

1/16 + 1/32 + 1/256 + 1/512 = 51/512 = 0.99609735, .04%low

and so on. The series converges but never terminates

Why is that? Is 1/10 magic like pi? Nope, it's just
because binary is simply not a convenient symbol
system to represent value like 1/10.

And, by the way, pi is the value it is ONLY in flat Euclidian
space. In one sufficently positive curved space, pi is
EXACTLY equal to 3, and in another sufficiently
negatively curved space, pi is EXACTLY equaly to 4
(all this is normal base 10 representation).

In that sense, any wish one might have that the digits of
pi have some mystical message, the answer is, uh, no.
The digits we calculate for pi are an artifact of the symbol
system we chose.

[Bob Cain]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> Bob Cain wrote:
>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>> Bob Cain wrote:
>>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I rather like the AUH.
>>>>> IMO it makes a lot more sense to ask 'why just this' rather than 'why
>>>>> this'.
>>>> How does AUH address the former rather than the latter?
>>> Well, one of the constraints that must be imposed on the selection of
>>> all possible universes is conditions for intelligent life to perceive
>>> them. So there is obviously an anthropic selection effect for starters.
>>
>> I was remaining within what Tegmark calls Level I. He says that with
>> inflation (which requires infinite extent as it is formulated) and
>> quantum fluctuation there are bound to be instances and repeats of
>> this or any possible quantum state of a Hubble volume within the Level
>> I universe. The only constraints that are imposed at Level I are the
>> values we see for the fundamental constants. Level I assumes that the
>> universe is isotropic in that regard. Since we live in a
>> demonstration of an adequate state, it was inevitable. That may be
>> what the "strong" anthropic principle requires, I don't remember.
>>
>> As I read Tegmark, there is no need at all for anthropic selection
>> since, one way or another, all possible states are "explored"
>> (redundantly) even at Level I. Selection implies a narrowing,
>> inflation implies the opposite.
>>
>> BTW, thanks again for that link.
>>
>>> For example, simple 'triangle universes' would not be complex enough to
>>> give rise to intelligence.
>>
>> Whooosh again. :-)
>
> If Tegmark is correct, then there are an infinite number of versions of
> this universe, and it starts to look a bit like the Many Worlds
> Interpretation (but is apparently unrelated).

Indeed. He describes four levels of infinities, each of a different
nature and containing all of the levels below. At each level there
are an infinite number of branches containing exact copies of our
Hubble volume. MW is level III.

We're a side effect.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein