Design as the Inverse of Cognition

Posted on May 17, 2015 by fifthmonarchyman

Several regulars have requested that I put together a short OP and I’ve agreed to do so out of deference to them. Let me be clear from the outset that this is not my preferred course of action. I would rather discuss in a more interactive way so that I can learn from criticism and modify my thoughts as I go along. OPs are a little too final for my tastes.

I want to emphasize that everything I say here is tentative and is subject to modification or withdraw as feedback is received,

It’s important to understand that I speak for no one but myself it is likely that my understanding of particular terms and concepts will differ from others with interest in ID. I also want to apologize for the general poor quality of this piece I am terrible at detail and I did not put the effort in I should have due mainly to laziness and lack of desire.

With that out of the way:

Background

For the purpose of this discussion I would like to expand upon the work of Phill Mcguire found here and stipulate that cognition can be seen as lossless data compression in which information is integrated in a non-algorithmic process. The output of this process is a unified coherent whole abstract concept that from here forward I will refer to as a specification/target. Mcguire’s work thus far deals with unified consciousness as a whole but I believe his incites are equally valid when dealing with integrated information as associated with individual concepts.

I am sure that there are those who will object to the understanding of cognition that I’m using for various reasons but in the interest of brevity I’m treating it an an axiomatic starting point here. If you are unwilling to accept this proviso for the sake of argument perhaps we can discuss it later in another place instead of bogging down this particular discussion.

From a practical perspective cognition works something like this: in my mind I losslessly integrate information that comprise the defining boundary attributes of a particular target; for instance,”house” has such information as “has four walls”, “waterproof roof”, “home for family”, “warm place to sleep”, as well as various other data integrated into the simple unified “target” of a house that exists in my mind. The process by which I do this can not be described algorithmically. from the outside it is a black box but it yields a specified target output: the concept of “house”.

Once I have internalize what a house is I can proceed to categorize objects I come across into two groups: those that are houses and those that are not. You might notice the similarity of this notion to the Platonic forms in that the target House is not a physical structure existing somewhere but an abstraction.

Argument

With that in mind, it seems reasonable to me to posit that the process of design would simply be the inverse of cognition.

When we design something we begin with a pre-existing specific target in mind and through various means we attempt to decompress it’s information into an approximation of that target. For instance I might start with the target of house and through various means proceed to approximate the specification I have in my mind into a physical object. I might hire a contractor nail and cut boards etc . The fruit of my labor is not a completed house until it matches the original target sufficiently to satisfy me. However, no matter how much effort I put into the approximation, it will never completely match the picture of an ideal house that I see in my mind. This is I believe because of the non-algorithmic nature of the process by which targets originate. Models can never match their specification exactly.

Another good example of the designing process would be the act of composing a message.

When I began to write this OP I had an idea of the target concept I wanted to share with the reader and I have proceeded to go about decompressing that information in a way that I hoped that could be understood. If I am successful after some contemplation a target will be present in your mind that is similar to the one that exists in mine. If the communication was perfect the two targets would be identical.

The bottom line is that each designed object is the result of a process that has at its heart an input that is the result of the non-algorithmic process of cognition (the target). The tee shirt equation would look like this

CSI=NCF

Complex Specified Information is the result of a noncomputable function. If the core of the design process (CSI) is non-computable then the process in its entirety can not be completely described algorithmically,

This insight immediately suggests a way to objectively determine if an object is the result of design. Simply put if an algorithmic process can fully explain an object then it is not designed. I think this is a very intuitive conclusion, I would argue that humans are hardwired to tentatively infer design for processes that we can’t fully explain in a step by step manner. The better we can explain an object algorithmically the weaker our design inference becomes. If we can completely explain it in this way then design is ruled out.

At some point I hope to describe some ways that we can be more objective in our determinations of whether an object/event can be fully explained algorithmically but as there is a lot of ground covered here so I will put it off for a bit. There are also several questions that will need to be addressed before this approach can be justifiably adopted generally such as how comprehensive an explanation must be to rule out design or conversely when we can be confident that no algorithmic explanation is forthcoming.

If possible I would like to explore these in the future perhaps in the comments section. It will depend on the tenor of feed back I receive.

peace

923 thoughts on “Design as the Inverse of Cognition”

Patrick on June 13, 2015 at 3:38 pm said:

fifthmonarchyman,

your first string has the letters NIL imbedded from time to time among the zeros and ones is this a feature or a bug?

Here’s the correct string, followed by the decimal value given by the converter I mentioned. Sorry for the mixup.

1100100010010110101001100100000010000100100101100100000011001001010000001001001110010110101001011000010101000000101000111000100010000101100001010110111101000000110100111000010110100011010000001001010010000101010000001000001110010110101001001001010110100011010000001010001110001000100001010100000010100110100000011010100010100010010010110100000011001001010000001001001110010110101001011000010101000000101000111000100010000101100001010100000010100011100101100100000010100011100010001000010101000000100001001000010110010111101000111000100001000000100000011001010110000100010000001000001010011001100001011000000110000100101000111000100001000000100000011001010110000100010000001000100010000101100010011000011110001000101000110100000011010100101010000100000010100010100101101010010010010011010000001000001110000001100101010100000010011001100001011000000110000011100010000110101101000000101001101000100010000101100101010100000010000110100001011000010110010011100010011001010110000111010000001001011010100100101000110100000010010110100001100100000010100010100010011000011110001000101000110100000011000110100101101001100101000000101000111000100010000101010000001000010110010101100001001010001001000000100101101000011001000000100000101000010110001001100101011000011101000000100000011001010110000100010000001000100110000100100001011000000110010011010000001000011110011001100000011000001110000101010010110100000011001001010000001001001110010110101001011000010101000000101000111000100010000101100001010100000010100011100101100100000010100011100010001000010101000000100100111000010110100101100001011001001101000000100101101000011001000000100001011010010110000101100110011010100001000000100001001000000110101000011111011010001001000000110101001001011010100010101000110100000010011000101001001000100110000101101000110100000010010101100001011000010110000100011010110100000010000010101010000100000010100010101001001001010101000000100000011001010110000100010000001000001110000001100101011000010010010011100001010110000010010011100010011000011110001000101000110100101101000000110010010100000010010011100101101010010110000101010000001010001110001000100001011000010101000000100001101001100110000101100001011001001110101000011010110100000010000001101000100100000010010100100001011001010101000000101000101010001110011001100010011010010110000101010000001000011010010110100110010100000010011001100010011000011110001000101000110100101101000000110010010100000010010011100101101010010110000101010000001010001110001000100001011000010101000000100101111010010010011001100001011001001110101000011010110100000010000001101000100100000010100011100010001000010110101000010000001010001110100100100110011001010101000000100001101001100110010110100101000100000010010111100110011000000110001001101000101000010101001011010000001100100101000000100100111001011010100101100001010100000010100011100010001000010110000101010000001010011010001001101000111000100001000000101000111000100010000101010000001001011110000001101000101010001010001001100101101001010101000000100101111010010010100011010000001010001110010110010000001010010010100010100001010100000011001001100101010100000010010100101010000100000010010110100100111000010001000000100001111001100110001001100001011000011010100010011010110100000010000001100101011000010001000000101001101000100110100011100010000100000010010100101010000100000010000011100010001000100110010011100001001000100010010110100101101000010001111101101000100100000010000110100000011000100110100011100010000100101101000000110010010100000010010011100101101010010110000101010000001010001110001000100001011000010101000000101001101000100110100011100010000100000010000001010000001001001110010110101001011000010101000000110010010100000010100010100001011000010110010100100001011000010001000000101000111001011001000000100100111001011010100010100001010100000011100110100010011010001110001000010000001001010010101000010000001001001110010110101000101010001101000000101000101000000110001001100101011010001110100010010010110100000011001001010000001001001110010110101001011000010101000000101000111000100010000101100001010100000010100110100010011010001110001000010000001010001110001000100001010100000010000010100110011000010110000001101000111000100001101011010000001110001010010100100010011001001110000101101000100110101101000000101000111000010110000001100110011010001001101011010000001001011010000110010000001000000110010011100100110100000010010100101010000100000010010011100010011000011010000101010111100100000010000001100101011000010001101011010000001000100110000110010000001100011110010110100001000100000010000011100010001001011010010110101000101000010101101011010000001100100101000000101000101000100010000001100100111001001101000000100000101010010010100011010000001001001110010110101001011000010101000000101000111000100010000101100001010100000010000010100001011010001110100011100001011001100101000000100000011000011010100011100001011001100101000000100001001000010110000001101000111000100001001011

100657120676688549114566398001613295552606542163403993637843141493120482721542435295856094443367958838124429004005986332197397104025222161865513978724807668709707386058659329701449823432516510282973368423194668690159238126816361132704027295173512523714698692684494195366690476593149656511312792345307668824545698608652760823638671328521168600567387064269750452046220006431998467817511159491140674757678791864229877724168625758505728335846263184623815199126778090260390299111410899682606940920420041094226041900329136901339435457275782362833578281360964915573802257930373792827412670511686784272170278496295969157964289606218918055385796613712853783003713971199317751339886828234987649008562848210610172141611782230615105379030592121183571215972695685472634294975913227446935469338773148002054852359576153343082983525144369217306223887487181584480219182334139188945313942561924177690847983101636204628675198820818937148964797919117933351786320810647743355511615848009529885519230491742986449252723356203851697545939922430490445823536779643143138343753113601939194985726936005898225878589664622517022587433772037515014155381544916028732836177809697172828088859643549666654883883245200972918290113183907012616129064754431328023587111434854462374011068404718822173062604683659222007778266393880368768284814623594015497059462788431049284240982150880422442984709465979877368925263452499096670780979379536636516575590393816527865418309370345786048204771647172198726457358257705799248591741269817133131
JonF on June 13, 2015 at 3:47 pm said:

fifthmonarchyman:
JonF says.

I don’t know if there’s a single word for it,

If you can’t say what kind of process it is it becomes synonymous with “what ever happens”. If you say it’s not algorithmic and it’s not random and it’s not teleological. What is it???

Not having a single word for it is not the same as not being able to say what kind of process it is.

If it has no definitional boundary how can we discuss it. You make it sound like it’s the Aether

Not having a single word for it is not the same as not being able to define it or discuss it.

but evolution is none of those; it’s a combination of random and non-random elements.

correct, …
Yes. Note the multi-word description.

…combined algorithmic

Yet another undefined term. it isn’t just algorithmic, ity has algorithmic elements.

Random variation filtered by natural selection is an algorithm. Ever hear of evolutionary algorithms?

With random elements included in the algorithm yes. Because of the random elements, not repeatable.

Petrushka said it bests:

‘You can write algorithms that mimic evolution, but they are not biology. So far you have not presented anything remotely relevant to biology”
fifthmonarchyman on June 13, 2015 at 3:53 pm said:

Hey JonF

Would you be satisfied if we defined evolution as an algorithmic process with random elements that excluded the teleological?

peace
fifthmonarchyman on June 13, 2015 at 4:25 pm said:

Patrick.

I am unable to reject the null in step one with your first string. Therefore it is effectively random at this resolution.

Let me know if this is not right?

On to the next string
Patrick on June 13, 2015 at 4:49 pm said:

fifthmonarchyman,

I am unable to reject the null in step one with your first string. Therefore it is effectively random at this resolution.

Let me know if this is not right?

Can you provide a step-by-step description of how you came to that conclusion?

That was this sonnet by Elizabeth Barrett Browning, encoded in EBCDIC:

“How do I love thee? Let me count the ways. I love thee to the depth and breadth and height My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight For the ends of being and ideal grace. I love thee to the level of every day’s Most quiet need, by sun and candle-light. I love thee freely, as men strive for right. I love thee purely, as they turn from praise. I love thee with the passion put to use In my old griefs, and with my childhood’s faith. I love thee with a love I seemed to lose With my lost saints. I love thee with the breath, Smiles, tears, of all my life; and, if God choose, I shall but love thee better after death.”
keiths on June 13, 2015 at 4:59 pm said:

Oops.
Patrick on June 13, 2015 at 5:40 pm said:

keiths,

Oops.

Hey, every metric has false positives and false negatives. Fifthmonarchyman is putting his to the test, in public. Major kudos to him.

(I’m assuming fifthmonarchyman identifies as male based on the nym.)
keiths on June 13, 2015 at 5:57 pm said:

Patrick,

Hey, every metric has false positives and false negatives.

Sure, but for fifth’s method to fail on one of his canonical examples — a sonnet — is pretty embarrassing.
fifthmonarchyman on June 13, 2015 at 6:26 pm said:

Patrick says.

Can you provide a step-by-step description of how you came to that conclusion?

I say.

Not much too it.

I simply randomized the digits and then ran it through the line graph game. I was unable to tell the difference between the random string and the original after 18 tries that is the limit I set. Normally I can see patterns in 5 tries or less

In this case I was able to choose the original string correctly 41% of the time. My method is conservative in that I have limited time to get it right and there is no going over. I do this to prevent the observer from simply memorizing the digits in the original.

What I’m looking for is global patterns that reflect the entire string. Patterns like spiky, smooth or see saw. I want to see if I can integrate the information into a single united whole concept

There were hints that there might be something like that in your string but nothing definitive.

I find the failure to be interesting.

When I have run examples of other English verse through the game I can see definite patterns quickly. Certain digits together more often or spaces at regular intervals for example.

But Ive never run one that has been coded from English to binary then to base ten. Usually what I do is assign a value to each word like it’s dictionary reference number and go with that.

I’m curious was the sonnet coded with a particular value per word or per letter? How did you code the spaces between lines and words?

I’ll let you know about the other strings ASAP

peace
Patrick on June 13, 2015 at 6:42 pm said:

fifthmonarchyman,

I’m curious was the sonnet coded with a particular value per word or per letter? How did you code the spaces between lines and words?

EBCDIC, ASCII’s evil older brother.

Some would argue that EBCDIC is a horrible encoding (and Browning a subpar poet). Maybe you just can’t detect bad design. 😉
Patrick on June 13, 2015 at 6:46 pm said:

fifthmonarchyman,

If your approach doesn’t work for binary strings, rather than converting to the decimal equivalent you might want to convert to hexadecimal. That would map each 4 bits into a single character in the range [0-9,A-F] and might preserve more structure, if any is there.
fifthmonarchyman on June 13, 2015 at 7:04 pm said:

Patrick

I think the conversion to base ten might have contributed to the failure of the first string. It’s always best to stick to the original plan,

So for the second string I just went with the string you gave me. Better to be slow at first and save the short cuts for later.

In step one I rejected the null. It’s not random at this resolution

I’m on to step two. Unless you tell me step one was a false positive

Peace
Patrick on June 13, 2015 at 7:13 pm said:

fifthmonarchyman,

Here are the remaining strings in hexadecimal, if that’s easier for you.

B)
“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”

C)
“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”

D)
“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”

E)
“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”

F)
“341C3C1C3C67D0673272503C46412735536D44743640D25DDD7D746D55D54534436045522727647D67412C314C7371556346346552D1D230207DD31C146127D553D062743D02263D7357D75242C12323C534D626D452322C3DCC4721D73711D011742C261C4D20403176CD16DD26CC61547D3664516555CC3356C015C644611C724632676636241472D044466DD35D771403451C2C553512212C67C2047366D22C357503D455424112304D23C4D134662464064325D5D443D211615D3C25C1D0377171C5746524431113732CD4C663775D725D54404C766DD5DD54D65C56676D7DC4D21525CCD320DC4D213442514C317636DDD33D7452716C33C35DCD71D255C221C373CC5D2DC6D565717C3D2D32DC3D6CC4D22325370D6621142132C1D45C615162D41DC2454D2305C23C3245656C063D7211C323C4C370DC1D677C1720147541425122305DC11370DD51C1CC17D2615D02717DCCCC71D267C4342C5542C7CD633C4D33C6DDCD30C5C07C3746D34D516C61DC666252652366D5C6C4750322536C34061D4C53230D0315DD03272625DD61C6D1652160D262142C1625607653721730D51C25D0CCC441545C2D563624C1607D341675276D51221043C712C247710117464406141CDC5105C42D5D577313541765CCD7427027603132604C6DC1D22623105C1413107534CC3271D202233646717C72D0642061DD744440D2702550615DD423D437CC5C45D5560277740415335C6641537504DCC35714C41261D71365573127D313255441D623734C5472DC77CD66CD5D40D560D4767D1C75D752C032524015311364463433C256CD5126337”
Patrick on June 13, 2015 at 7:16 pm said:

fifthmonarchyman,

So for the second string I just went with the string you gave me. Better to be slow at first and save the short cuts for later.

In step one I rejected the null. It’s not random at this resolution

I’m on to step two. Unless you tell me step one was a false positive

I’m afraid so. String B was randomly generated. Do you get a different result if you use the hexadecimal string?
fifthmonarchyman on June 13, 2015 at 7:37 pm said:

Patrick says,

String B was randomly generated.

dang

You need to explain the method you used to me. Are you honestly saying that each bit is random relative to every other bit? This is important.

Remember by random I assume you are are saying that each individual character is equally likely. A zero is just as likely as a one in any given spot.

Is that what you are saying?

peace
Patrick on June 13, 2015 at 7:42 pm said:

fifthmonarchyman,

You need to explain the method you used to me. Are you honestly saying that each bit is random relative to every other bit? This is important.

Remember by random I assume you are are saying that each individual character is equally likely. A zero is just as likely as a one in any given spot.

Is that what you are saying?

Yes. I used the code from my GA Engine. Here’s the exact function:

(defun make-genome (length &optional (distribution 0.5)) "Create a randomized bit array of the specified LENGTH. A value between 0 and 1 can be specified for DISTRIBUTION to modify the mean relative number of 1 bits." (let ((genome (make-array length :element-type 'bit :initial-element 0)) (random-state (make-random-state t))) (map-into genome (lambda () (if (> distribution (random 1.0 random-state)) 1 0)))))
Patrick on June 13, 2015 at 7:42 pm said:

Hmm, that came out ugly. Imagine proper formatting.
fifthmonarchyman on June 13, 2015 at 7:47 pm said:

This is definitely an issue.

In the original string I saw 001 and 100 much more often than 010. My randomized copy was more uniform in distribution

Why do you think that is?

peace
fifthmonarchyman on June 13, 2015 at 7:49 pm said:

By the way thank you for the feed back. It is helpful to me

peace
fifthmonarchyman on June 13, 2015 at 7:53 pm said:

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1
fifthmonarchyman on June 13, 2015 at 8:05 pm said:

that is my random copy In case you were wondering

also ugly.

Is there anyway you could run your randomization process again so I could compare the two strings against each other?

peace
Patrick on June 13, 2015 at 8:44 pm said:

fifthmonarchyman,

Is there anyway you could run your randomization process again so I could compare the two strings against each other?

I don’t understand what you’re asking for. You already have my original random string, correct? Do you want another random string?
Patrick on June 13, 2015 at 8:50 pm said:

fifthmonarchyman,

In the original string I saw 001 and 100 much more often than 010. My randomized copy was more uniform in distribution

Why do you think that is?

It’s probably just a chance artifact. The count of 0s and 1s in the original string are within 40 of each other, which shouldn’t skew the results. Basically I just call the random number generator for each bit — if it’s less than 0.5 I generate a 0, otherwise a 1.
fifthmonarchyman on June 13, 2015 at 9:13 pm said:

patrick says

You already have my original random string, correct? Do you want another random string?

I say.

Yes that is exactly what I want. Produced the by the same method please.

Thank you again for helping me investigate and work out these kinks.

peace
Patrick on June 13, 2015 at 9:26 pm said:

fifthmonarchyman,

I’m on my way out the door to do the parent thing. I’ll get you a few examples when I come back tonight.

I’m shocked that not everyone has a Common Lisp environment installed, though.
Patrick on June 13, 2015 at 9:43 pm said:

fifthmonarchyman,

It turns out the ferrets hid one of my sons’ shoes. I fixed the first string and added three new random strings to the bottom of the the file here.
keiths on June 13, 2015 at 9:58 pm said:

Kleptomaniacal ferrets and Common Lisp? What kind of a madhouse are you running, Patrick?
fifthmonarchyman on June 14, 2015 at 12:48 pm said:

Thanks Patrick,

I’ll get to work ant let you know what I find

peace
petrushka on June 14, 2015 at 1:17 pm said:

I’m shocked that not everyone knows what long unbroken strings do to browsers.
fifthmonarchyman on June 14, 2015 at 1:26 pm said:

I just ran your original random string against one of you new randoms and I could pick out the original almost 90% of the time. However I was seeing the opposite difference that I saw before. This time it was sting 2 that seems to be less seesaw like.

I’m thinking there must be something going on with binary. Maybe there is just not enough “resolution” with just two numbers.

Which might be bad news as I try to generalize the method.

I’m going to compare two additional random strings to see if this holds up

peace

edit I was incorrect I saw the same pattern that I saw earlier against the first random. not a different pattern.
Patrick on June 14, 2015 at 1:30 pm said:

keiths,

The ferrets are really more shoe fetishists. Those are the only thing they like to drag around and hide.

It’s pretty impressive, since I think my shoes outweigh them.
OMagain on June 14, 2015 at 1:36 pm said:

fifthmonarchyman: 2) With the second string (the one that started with an L) I was able to reject the null in both step one and two. This means that the string is not random and can not be explained by algorithmic processes.

Therefore I conclude it is the product of design.

The string was not random.

It was generated by the following process:

A) Generate many random strings.
B) Compress them all (using zip)
C) Sort them by size (larger size == fitter)
D) Breed the remaining strings with each other, discarding the lower scorers.
C) Repeat until the (compressed version of) string had not increased in size for N generations.

So the strings represents “incompressible data” in essence. I used a variety of methods for the breeding, but really it made little difference in the end.

The first string I gave you was in fact generated at point A) before any rounds of selection.

Therefore I consider that the string was designed by evolution and algorithmic processes. You have a partial win – it’s not random.
petrushka on June 14, 2015 at 1:58 pm said:

I would argue that being misled by a simple substitution cipher is cause for concern. There are web pages that will break a simple cipher.
fifthmonarchyman on June 14, 2015 at 2:02 pm said:

Omagan says.

Therefore I consider that the string was designed by evolution and algorithmic processes.

I say.

That is what I was getting at by not being explained by algorithmic process. You used evolution to accomplish your purposes but you had a goal/target that you wanted to achieve. You were definitely being teleological. Evolution has no goals

Designed using evolution is still designed.

I think it’s a total win with your strings

peace
fifthmonarchyman on June 14, 2015 at 2:13 pm said:

OK I ran the two additional random binary strings through the method and was able to tell the difference between the two.

this is an interesting result.

It’s interesting in that in order to make the conclusion I needed to look at many more data points than I do with normal strings. But apparently with binary there is just not enough “resolution” in an individual given digit to make the strings look sufficiently random to the observer ever.

When I did binary before I did not do a random control. I assumed it would be so hard to pick out patterns that false negatives would be the issue with binary not the other way around.

I need to think about this for a while. I’ll get back to you

peace
fifthmonarchyman on June 14, 2015 at 2:30 pm said:

An interesting story on binary randomness and how it appears to the observer

http://www.leancrew.com/all-this/2009/06/stochasticity/

peace
OMagain on June 14, 2015 at 2:48 pm said:

fifthmonarchyman: Designed using evolution is still designed.

Quite. Do let the others at UD know when you get a chance 🙂
JonF on June 14, 2015 at 3:10 pm said:

fifthmonarchyman:
Hey JonF

Would you be satisfied if we defined evolution as an algorithmic process with random elements that excluded the teleological?

peace

Yes. Neither “algorithmic” nor “random” are sufficient to describe it.
JonF on June 14, 2015 at 3:12 pm said:

keiths:
Kleptomaniacal ferrets and Common Lisp?What kind of a madhouse are you running, Patrick?

LISP ROCKS!!!
OMagain on June 14, 2015 at 3:30 pm said:

I almost learnt LISP on my last holiday, but I chose to do a introductory graph theory course instead. Perhaps next year 🙂
Patrick on June 14, 2015 at 3:47 pm said:

petrushka,

I’m shocked that not everyone knows what long unbroken strings do to browsers.

My apologies.
Patrick on June 14, 2015 at 3:50 pm said:

fifthmonarchyman,

I just ran your original random string against one of you new randoms and I could pick out the original almost 90% of the time.

I have no idea what you mean by this. I can tell they’re different 100% of the time.
fifthmonarchyman on June 14, 2015 at 6:05 pm said:

Here are some additional preliminary findings from Patrick binary strings.

1) By definition there are only two possible patterns we can see with binary strings clumpy verses nonclumpy.

2) therefore when comparing two stings one will always look to be more or less clumpy than the other.

That is a problem. The method depends on random strings being indistinguishable from each other

A way around this would be to look at several strings at once and see if the original string is more or less clumpy than all of them.

In the past I have looked at 3 strings at once but I think I will need to look at at least 5 to say that the original is indeed different than the others.

more later

peace
fifthmonarchyman on June 14, 2015 at 6:28 pm said:

Johnf says,

Yes. Neither “algorithmic” nor “random” are sufficient to describe it.

I say,

Cool, As long as we can describe evolution as some combination of those two things then my method should work.

Peace
keiths on June 14, 2015 at 6:39 pm said:

fifth,

The method depends on random strings being indistinguishable from each other

Your condition can’t be met.

All finite strings are random, in that a random process in which

a) each character has a nonzero probability and

b) the character at each position in the string is independent of the characters at the other positions

will produce all possible finite character strings.
fifthmonarchyman on June 14, 2015 at 6:44 pm said:

petrushka,

I would argue that being misled by a simple substitution cipher is cause for concern.

I say,

The issue here is the problem with binary strings gets carried over when we convert them to base ten.

It’s not that i did not see patterns in the cipher string it’s just that they were not definitive enough.

This sort of thing is not a problem at all when dealing with the sorts of strings that My method was designed for but

I think the difficulty can be overcome with longer strings and more copies to compare the original with.

I’m a little concerned that this sort of change to the game will lead to more false negatives. But there is not way to tell till I make the modifications and give it a shot.

Patrick says

I have no idea what you mean by this. I can tell they’re different 100% of the time. quoted

I say,

You need to remember that I’m looking at these strings in the context of moving line graphs.
1) I don’t see all the points at once
2) I’m looking at global patterns and not individual points
3) I’m trying to tell which string is the “real” one not just that they are different.

With all that being said a string might appear to be more clumpy at one point and less clumpy at another. That is what accounts for the 10% error with these binary strings

peace
fifthmonarchyman on June 14, 2015 at 6:55 pm said:

Keiths says,

Your condition can’t be met.

I say,

My condition “that random strings are indistinguishable.” Is actually true by definition

from here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

quote:

Randomness is the lack of pattern or predictability in events. A random sequence of events, symbols or steps has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination.

end quote:

Keith’s says

All finite strings are random

This seems to be a claim that “given enough time and space anything that’s possible can happen.”

I suppose it’s true but pretty vacuous and totally irrelevant in our finite universe.

peace
Patrick on June 14, 2015 at 9:32 pm said:

fifthmonarchyman,

The method depends on random strings being indistinguishable from each other

Why would two random strings be indistinguishable from each other?
Patrick on June 14, 2015 at 9:35 pm said:

fifthmonarchyman,

You need to remember that I’m looking at these strings in the context of moving line graphs.

Maybe have a 0 mean a downtick and a 1 mean an uptick?
fifthmonarchyman on June 14, 2015 at 10:47 pm said:

Patrick asks,

Why would two random strings be indistinguishable from each other?

I say,

It’s important that you get this.

In the context of the game the way we distinguish strings is by predicting what number comes next in the series.

The only way we can pick the real string is to know what data point is coming next. The only way we can know this is by knowing the global patterns in the string. We can’t look at individual numbers.

This is the key to the entire method.

In order to tell the strings apart we need to nonlossily compress the information in the real string. It’s the only way to win.

By definition It’s impossible to compress the information in a random string. That is the reason we can’t distinguish between random strings with the”game”.

PLEASE ask clarifying questions if you don’t understand.
You will not see the point of my method until you get this point.

peace