petrushka on January 5, 2016 at 2:00 pm said:

I personally cannot see any distinguishing features between genomic sequences or protein amino acid sequences and the output of random number generators. I await some input from FMM on his abilities.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1590/23563433514_4966dc460f.jpg
faded_Glory on January 5, 2016 at 2:46 pm said:

I am still struggling with the input format.

Here is the start of a string I want to use:

0.30 0.70 2.39 1.30 0.10 6.08 0.40 1.00 0.60 0.10 0.00 2.39 6.08 0.60 1.10 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.30 6.88 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.1 0.20 1.40 2.49 0.70 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.29 4.69 2.70 8.19 2.60 0.30 4.59 1.10

Using this as the real and fake strings, just for testing, the program fails at trying to read the first value 0.30

fG
petrushka on January 5, 2016 at 2:48 pm said:

Multiply all your items by 100 and make them integers. As far as I can tell, the program does not really stretch the graph to make it more readable. I’m sure there will be revisions.
newton on January 5, 2016 at 2:49 pm said:

Do you have a link to the original paper on the game? For some reason I am under the impression that the “fake” data set must have the same data points as the real, but just in different sequence

Real = 123456789
Fake = 123789456

Thanks
dazz on January 5, 2016 at 2:50 pm said:

faded_Glory:
I am still struggling with the input format.

Here is the start of a string I want to use:

0.30 0.70 2.39 1.30 0.10 6.08 0.40 1.00 0.60 0.10 0.00 2.39 6.08 0.60 1.10 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.30 6.88 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.1 0.20 1.40 2.49 0.70 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.29 4.69 2.70 8.19 2.60 0.30 4.59 1.10

Using this as the real and fake strings, just for testing, the program fails at trying to read the first value 0.30

fG

It only takes integers, you’ll need to multiply each number by 100
petrushka on January 5, 2016 at 2:52 pm said:

My understanding is there are several kinds of fake strings.

Strings that are cut and reassembled, strings that are order scrambled, and strings with a few changes.

There are online random generators, so I used a random genome generator for the first test.
newton on January 5, 2016 at 2:55 pm said:

petrushka,

Thanks
petrushka on January 5, 2016 at 3:21 pm said:

I’ve found an online program that scrambles word order

http://davidbrett.uniss.it/eLearningTools/paragraph%20scrambler.html

and one that scrambles letters withing words

http://textmechanic.com/Word-Scrambler.html

They work on alphabetic text, but the ncbi genomes are text. It is no problem to convert the bases to integers for the game, after the scrambling or whatever.
fifthmonarchyman on January 5, 2016 at 3:30 pm said:

All
I’m suffering from the worst bout of the flu I have ever experienced.

I’ll catch up as soon as I can concentrate

peace
newton on January 5, 2016 at 3:31 pm said:

fifthmonarchyman,

Good luck
petrushka on January 5, 2016 at 3:34 pm said:

Something going around. I spent much of the last two days on the pot. Not the Colorado variety.
keiths on January 5, 2016 at 4:27 pm said:

fifth,

I’m suffering from the worst bout of the flu I have ever experienced.

I’ll catch up as soon as I can concentrate

Get your rest.

Don’t worry about us — we’ll still be here when you’re feeling better.
petrushka on January 5, 2016 at 4:37 pm said:

Second submission. Original data and three kinds of scrambling
10 10 30 20 10 30 20 30 10 30 10 30 40 10 40 20 10 40 30 10 20 20 10 30 20 10 40 40 40 10 20 40 10 10 40 20 40 20 40 30 40 40 40 10 10 10 20 20 20 40 20 10 30 10 10 40 30 10 20 30
30 40 20 30 20 20 30 30 40 20 20 30 40 40 20 40 20 10 30 40 30 10 10 10 40 40 20 40 10 40 20 20 20 20 40 30 20 30 40 40 40 40 10 40 40 10 40 40 40 10 10 10 40 10 20 20 30 30 10 20
40 30 40 40 40 20 20 40 40 40 10 10 40 30 40 20 10 40 10 20 40 20 20 40 20 40 10 10 10 10 40 20 10 40 30 40 30 30 20 40 40 40 40 30 20 40 40 20 30 10 20 40 40 30 30 40 30 10 30 40
10 40 30 10 40 40 30 20 40 40 40 10 40 10 10 40 20 20 20 20 20 40 10 30 30 10 40 30 20 40 40 20 40 40 20 30 10 40 20 20 40 20 10 40 40 20 10 10 20 30 40 40 20 10 30 20 30 40 10 10
10 40 40 10 20 10 40 20 10 40 20 10 20 20 20 20 10 10 10 40 40 40 10 20 40 20 40 20 30 20 10 40 40 20 20 40 10 20 30 40 30 30 40 20 40 20 20 40 20 40 10 40 30 20 20 40 40 20 10 30
40 40 40 10 40 40 20 20 10 40 40 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 30 10 20 40 20 40 30 30 10 40 40 40 30 40 40 20 10 10 40 40 10 30 20 40 20 10 10 10 10 20 30 10 20 20 30 40 20 10 40 20 40 10
10 30 20 20 30 20 20 30 40 40 20 30 40 10 20 10 40 30 20 20 20 20 10 40 10 30 10 30 20 20 30 20 10 30 20 10 10 30 20 30 10 10 20 20 40 30 30 40 40 20 10 20 10 30 20 20 20 40 20 40
10 40 30 30 10 40 10 40 40 40 20 10 30 20 10 10 30 20 30 40 20 20 40 10 30 40 20 40 20 20 40 20 20 10 10 20 40 40 40 20 40 30 10 10 10 20 40 40 20 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 10 40 10

20 40 40 30 30 40 30 10 30 40 20 40 10 30 30 10 40 30 20 40 10 40 30 10 40 40 30 20 40 40 20 40 20 40 30 30 10 40 40 40 40 40 10 20 40 20 40 20 30 20 40 30 10 10 10 20 40 40 20 20
20 20 10 40 10 30 10 30 20 20 30 40 40 20 10 10 40 40 10 30 10 40 30 30 10 40 10 40 40 40 40 30 40 40 40 20 20 40 40 40 40 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 30 10 40 40 40 10 40 40 20 20 10 40
40 20 40 40 20 30 10 40 20 20 10 10 20 20 40 30 30 40 40 20 10 10 40 30 40 20 10 40 10 20 20 30 40 40 20 40 20 10 30 40 30 20 10 30 20 10 10 30 20 30 20 40 20 10 10 10 10 20 30 10
10 40 40 20 20 40 10 20 30 40 40 40 40 30 20 40 40 20 30 10 40 20 20 10 10 20 40 40 40 20 10 10 40 10 20 20 30 30 10 20 40 20 10 40 40 20 10 10 20 30 20 10 30 20 10 10 30 20 30 40
20 10 30 10 10 40 30 10 20 30 20 20 20 20 40 30 20 30 40 40 40 40 40 10 10 10 20 20 20 40 20 20 10 30 20 10 40 40 40 10 10 40 30 20 20 40 40 20 10 30 20 30 40 10 20 10 40 30 20 20
20 20 30 40 20 10 40 20 40 10 30 40 20 30 20 20 30 30 40 20 40 20 20 40 20 40 10 10 10 10 30 10 10 10 40 40 20 40 10 40 10 40 40 10 20 10 40 20 10 40 20 10 20 20 20 20 10 10 10 40
40 10 40 10 10 40 20 20 20 20 40 40 20 10 30 20 30 40 10 10 10 30 20 20 30 20 20 30 40 40 20 20 40 10 30 40 20 40 20 20 30 30 40 20 40 20 20 40 20 40 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 10 40 10
40 40 10 40 40 10 40 40 40 10 40 20 10 40 30 40 30 30 20 40 10 20 10 30 20 20 20 40 20 40 20 40 10 10 40 20 40 20 40 30 10 10 30 20 10 30 20 30 10 30 10 30 40 10 40 20 10 40 30 10

40 40 20 30 30 40 30 40 30 10 30 40 20 10 30 40 30 10 20 40 40 10 30 10 40 40 30 20 40 40 40 40 20 10 20 30 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 10 20 20 20 30 20 40 10 20 30 20 10 40 20 10 40
10 10 20 30 10 20 20 40 30 20 30 40 20 10 10 40 10 40 30 40 10 30 10 40 30 40 40 40 10 40 40 20 40 40 20 40 30 40 40 40 40 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 30 10 40 40 10 40 40 20 10 40 20 40
40 40 20 40 40 10 20 30 20 20 40 10 10 20 30 30 20 40 20 40 10 10 20 40 30 40 10 40 10 20 40 20 30 20 40 20 40 30 40 10 20 20 30 30 20 10 10 10 30 30 20 40 10 10 30 20 10 10 10 20
40 10 40 30 20 20 40 10 20 40 30 40 40 40 40 40 20 20 30 10 20 20 40 10 10 40 20 40 20 40 10 10 10 30 30 10 40 20 20 20 10 20 40 10 40 10 20 40 20 30 20 10 30 10 20 10 30 30 20 40
10 20 30 30 10 10 40 20 30 10 20 20 20 20 30 20 40 30 40 40 40 40 10 40 10 10 20 40 20 20 20 20 20 10 30 10 40 40 40 10 30 10 40 20 40 20 40 20 30 10 20 30 30 40 20 40 10 20 10 20
20 20 30 10 20 40 40 20 10 40 30 40 20 20 30 30 20 30 40 20 40 20 20 40 40 20 10 10 10 10 40 10 10 40 30 40 10 10 40 20 40 10 10 40 20 10 10 40 20 40 20 20 10 10 20 10 20 20 40 10
10 40 10 40 40 20 10 20 20 20 40 30 20 40 10 20 40 30 10 10 20 30 10 40 30 20 20 40 20 30 40 20 10 30 40 20 40 20 20 20 40 30 30 20 40 20 20 20 40 40 10 10 10 10 10 40 10 10 10 20
40 40 10 10 40 40 40 40 40 10 40 40 20 10 20 30 30 40 40 30 30 10 20 20 10 40 20 20 40 20 40 20 10 40 10 40 20 30 20 40 30 10 10 20 10 20 30 30 30 10 10 10 40 40 20 30 10 30 10 40

10 10 20 20 30 10 30 30 30 10 10 30 10 20 10 40 30 10 40 40 10 10 20 20 20 30 40 40 40 10 20 40 40 10 20 20 40 10 40 30 40 10 10 40 40 10 20 40 20 20 30 10 10 20 10 40 30 10 20 30
40 20 30 20 30 20 40 30 30 20 20 40 40 30 20 10 20 30 40 40 10 10 20 30 10 40 40 40 10 40 20 20 20 20 40 20 30 40 40 30 40 40 10 40 10 40 40 40 10 40 10 10 20 10 30 40 10 20 20 30
40 40 30 40 40 20 20 40 40 40 10 10 40 40 10 10 20 30 20 40 40 40 20 20 40 10 10 20 10 10 10 40 20 20 30 40 40 30 40 30 40 40 20 40 40 40 30 30 10 20 40 40 30 20 30 40 30 10 40 30
10 40 40 10 40 20 40 30 40 30 40 40 10 10 10 20 40 20 20 20 20 30 20 40 40 10 30 10 30 40 40 20 40 20 40 30 10 40 20 20 20 40 10 40 40 20 10 20 30 10 40 40 20 10 30 20 10 40 30 10
10 40 20 40 10 10 20 10 40 40 20 20 20 20 20 10 10 40 10 10 40 40 10 20 40 20 20 30 40 20 10 40 40 20 20 40 10 20 30 40 30 20 20 40 30 40 20 40 20 40 20 30 10 20 40 40 30 20 40 10
40 40 40 40 10 40 20 20 40 10 40 30 40 40 40 40 10 40 30 40 20 40 30 20 40 30 40 10 40 40 20 40 30 40 10 10 40 10 40 30 20 40 10 10 20 10 30 10 20 10 20 20 20 30 40 10 40 20 40 10
30 20 10 20 30 30 20 20 40 40 20 30 10 40 10 30 20 20 20 40 20 20 10 10 40 30 30 10 20 20 30 20 10 10 10 20 30 30 20 30 10 20 10 20 30 40 30 40 40 20 30 10 20 20 10 20 20 40 40 20
40 10 10 30 30 40 10 40 40 40 20 10 20 10 10 30 30 40 20 30 20 10 20 40 30 20 40 40 20 20 20 40 20 10 20 10 40 40 40 20 30 10 10 40 10 20 40 20 40 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 40 10 10

Edit to fix formatting
faded_Glory on January 5, 2016 at 4:43 pm said:

dazz,

Thanks, but I’m still having trouble. I multiplied all the numbers in Excel to integers as per your suggestion, and I now have them all on one row in successive cells. Then I save this as a space-delimited text file. This looks ok but there are too many spaces between the numbers. Even when I manually remove the extra spaces on a test subset, the program still fails to read the file.

Here are the first few numbers:

30 70 239 130 10 608 40 100 60 10 0 239 608 60 110 10 20 10 30 688 80 0 0

Ha, I copied the above string from the edit window into Notepad and saved it as a text file. It now longer complains about string”” or something, but now I get a different error: ArrayindexOutOfBoundsException: 39

Does anyone know how to export from Excel in a way that the program can read the numbers?

fG
dazz on January 5, 2016 at 4:59 pm said:

faded_Glory,

Looks like the code craps out if there aren’t at least 40 numbers
dazz on January 5, 2016 at 5:01 pm said:

Correction, 41 numbers
petrushka on January 5, 2016 at 5:06 pm said:

It’s very fussy about spaces between data items.
faded_Glory on January 5, 2016 at 5:16 pm said:

Yes it seems very fussy. I pasted my string into the edit window here, now the whole thing that is between 300 and 400 numbers, and it complains again about NumberFormatException: For input string “”

30 70 239 130 10 608 40 100 60 10 0 239 608 60 110 10 20 10 30 688 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 140 249 70 30 0 0 0 429 469 270 819 260 30 459 110 10 20 60 329 609 549 30 20 20 80 110 200 150 190 210 0 600 120 170 0 970 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 350 350 210 20 0 10 710 10 0 10 300 510 460 150 200 60 0 50 60 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 10 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 190 439 967 997 160 160 309 0 0 0 10 0 110 90 30 10 10 10 10 10 249 199 289 100 0 50 229 209 2433 10 150 10 0 0 10 0 648 379 1106 239 209 508 140 1615 688 0 0 60 50 60 0 50 120 0 0 70 110 30 70 0 0 70 70 10 350 430 190 180 80 50 40 10 0 0 100 10 180 990 470 170 0 90 0 30 320 510 660 370 290 350 0 0 0 669 150 180 389 389 389 809 190 1118 479 309 589 110 30 359 220 868 200 629 1138 150 150 1427 250 0 0 40 0 20 10 0 0 0 80 240 50 389 150 210 50 339 549 30 220 100 250 10 0 0 459 90 160 0 779 140 279 110 389 30 230 100 10 10 170 290 619 0 30 20 220 0 0 0 30 539 140 439 20 50 60 40 220 839 869 349 10 809 10 230 40 0 659 100 0 0 100 1520 790 20 970 30 1070 810 50 130 0 200 60 10 50 20 20 140 410 960 900 690 430 450 80 640 40 50 428 60 139 30 0 10 1 923 10 10 438 438 1275 100 10 70 0 10 0 10 60 169 10 149 149 20 0 0 0 10 0

fG
dazz on January 5, 2016 at 5:17 pm said:

petrushka:
It’s very fussy about spaces between data items.

I’m beginning to suspect this was meant to troll us all…

I kid! I kid! it’s a great game…

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd82/deboesports/for-me-to-poop-on.jpg
petrushka on January 5, 2016 at 5:26 pm said:

faded_Glory: I pasted my string into the edit window here,

Your data works for me, except the vertical axis needs scaling.
I’m afraid to work you need to divide by 10 and 5/4 round.
Patrick on January 5, 2016 at 5:31 pm said:

fifthmonarchyman,

I’m suffering from the worst bout of the flu I have ever experienced.

The dreaded man-flu. Women will never know how we suffer. I hope it doesn’t last long.
keiths on January 5, 2016 at 10:29 pm said:

newton,

For some reason I am under the impression that the “fake” data set must have the same data points as the real, but just in different sequence

Real = 123456789
Fake = 123789456

Thanks

That’s true for what fifth calls the “random” string. Here is fifth’s poor description of how you form the four different kinds of “fake” strings:

A normal comprehensive test scenario would look like this

You would have at minimum 5 strings 1 real and 4 fakes

1) the “original” string produced by representing an object or process numerically. There are a near-infinite number of ways this can be done.

2) a “complexity” string that is created choosing a random spot to cut the original sequence and reassemble so that you have new string that identical to the original except it begins in a different spot

3) a “random” string that is created by simply randomizing the original string as to order

4) a “model” string that is created by any algorithmic process er choose. (I usually use an EA). What is important is that it be close but not identical to the original and that the algorithm not target the specific digits in the original string

As a bonus we might include one or more “manual” copies in which we take a “model” string and do some post processing smothing

And here are the criteria for inferring design:

In order to actually infer design the observer needs to be unable to distinguish the real string from the “manual” and “complexity” strings but able to distinguish when it comes to the “model” and “random” strings.
keiths on January 5, 2016 at 10:32 pm said:

And here’s my critique:

fifth,

You still haven’t found a solution for the resolution and representation issues. Not only that, your procedure as presented is hopelessly ambiguous, imprecise, and unreliable.

You write:

In order to actually infer design the observer needs to be unable to distinguish the real string from the “manual” and “complexity” strings but able to distinguish when it comes to the “model” and “random” strings.

You describe the “complexity” string thus:

2) a “complexity” string that is created choosing a random spot to cut the original sequence and reassemble so that you have new string that identical to the original except it begins in a different spot

Yet it’s easy to think of strings for which choosing one random spot to cut and reassemble would create an obvious discontinuity, while choosing a different random spot would not. In your methodology, that can make the difference between “detecting” design or not.

Whether you “detect” design is supposed to depend on the pattern(s) you perceive in the string itself, not on the random number you happen to pick when generating your “complexity” string.

Of the “manual” string, you say:

As a bonus we might include one or more “manual” copies in which we take a “model” string and do some post processing smothing

How many copies? As many as the experimenter feels like? How much “smothing” is allowed? About yay much? And why do the smoothing manually, instead of doing something more objective?

And what is the smoothing supposed to accomplish? I can smooth any string into a flat line, in which case I’ll be able to distinguish the “manual” string from the “real” one (unless the latter is also a flat line).

That means any “real” string can be rejected as undesigned unless it is a flat line. But a flat line will also be rejected, since flat lines aren’t distinguishable from randomly reordered versions of themselves. If you allow unlimited smoothing, then your “tool” can get swamped with false negatives.

But if you choose to limit the amount of smoothing, then you need to find an objective way to determine the right amount and an objective way to enforce the limit.

Of the “model” string, you write:

4) a “model” string that is created by any algorithmic process er choose. (I usually use an EA). What is important is that it be close but not identical to the original and that the algorithm not target the specific digits in the original string

How close is “close but not identical”? How do you theoretically determine the right amount of closeness?

How do you decide whether an algorithm “targets” the specific digits in the original string? I don’t think it’s as obvious as you’re assuming.

Then we will load the real string an a fake into the game and start the fun

It isn’t going to be very much fun for you if you don’t address these many issues. They’re hanging over your head like the sword of Damocles.
petrushka on January 5, 2016 at 10:44 pm said:

I think there’s a bigger problem. If you supply all five strings, you can spot the original just by looking at the raw data.
petrushka on January 5, 2016 at 10:46 pm said:

I’m wondering if anyone can spot the original from a completely unrelated randomly generated dataset.
shallit on January 6, 2016 at 2:22 am said:

I recommend that fifthmonarchyman read some of the existing literature, such as the pioneering work of people like Gold (1967) and Angluin (1980), Valiant’s recent book, and work on Kolmogorov complexity (such as the book of Li and Vitanyi). After doing so, he will understand better how completely misguided and naive his thinking is. (It’s at about the level of a college freshman.)

Computer scientists have thought about the problem of inferring patterns from data for more than 50 years. I am glad creationists are finally catching up.
newton on January 6, 2016 at 2:51 am said:

keiths: That’s true for what fifth calls the “random” string. Here is fifth’s poor description of how you form the four different kinds of “fake” strings:

Thanks keiths
keiths on January 6, 2016 at 8:24 am said:

shallit:

I recommend that fifthmonarchyman read some of the existing literature, such as the pioneering work of people like Gold (1967) and Angluin (1980), Valiant’s recent book, and work on Kolmogorov complexity (such as the book of Li and Vitanyi). After doing so, he will understand better how completely misguided and naive his thinking is. (It’s at about the level of a college freshman.)

Fifth’s last attempt at grappling with Kolmogorov complexity was a disaster. He claimed that since pi had an infinite non-repeating decimal expansion, its Kolmogorov complexity was unbounded.
fifthmonarchyman on January 6, 2016 at 6:36 pm said:

petrushka: I think there’s a bigger problem. If you supply all five strings, you can spot the original just by looking at the raw data.

still pretty groggy but this is a very valid concern.

The original intent was for the observer to have no access to the raw data and no idea what assay is being performed. He is just comparing graphs and looking for patterns

I would like to see a centralized location to store strings and keep track of results to minimize bias and cheating .

Peace
PS
The game is kinda fun aint it?
petrushka on January 6, 2016 at 6:42 pm said:

fifthmonarchyman: The game is kinda fun aint it?

In what way fun? I would like you to take my original submission — real data and a randomly generated dataset, and walk us through a comparison of the graphs. I published a link to the graph in my first comment on this thread.

Here’s the graph.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1590/23563433514_4966dc460f.jpg
OMagain on January 6, 2016 at 8:06 pm said:

inlined
fifthmonarchyman on January 7, 2016 at 12:13 pm said:

petrushka: I would like you to take my original submission — real data and a randomly generated dataset, and walk us through a comparison of the graphs.

Please provide the original data set and I’ll plug it in and give you my results for each of the tests.

How many repeats did you do before you gave up hope of distinguishing between the two or finding a pattern?

peace
petrushka on January 7, 2016 at 2:17 pm said:

Fifth:

Here’s my data. The first graph is posted just two posts up. I do not like the “game” aspect. I think for discussion purposes the entire graph should remain visible, so we can annotate any place where a pattern appears and post the image here.

Working Definitions for the Design Detection Game/Tool

Let the Game Begin
fifthmonarchyman on January 7, 2016 at 10:33 pm said:

petrushka: Here’s my data.

It only took about 10 repetitions to distinguish a pattern in the real string. I call this one the W pattern.

Once you catch it you can quickly tell which string is the real one. There is a tendency on average for the real string to swing regularly from low to high and back to the same low value making the shape of a “W” repeatedly . The up and down swings in the random string are not as uniform as those in the real one.

petrushka: I do not like the “game” aspect.

Why so serious?
The game is supposed to be fun like solving a puzzle.

petrushka: I think for discussion purposes the entire graph should remain visible, so we can annotate any place where a pattern appears and post the image here.

I think this might defeat the purpose of the exercise. We are looking for the global pattern in the string not discrete elements in a particular spot.

When I look at the limited field of your screenshot I can’t be sure which string is the real one but I can pick it out 100% of the time in the context of the game

peace
petrushka on January 7, 2016 at 11:14 pm said:

So which one is it?
fifthmonarchyman on January 7, 2016 at 11:23 pm said:

petrushka: So which one is it?

The game does not help you to determine which string is the “real” one it only asks if there is a distinguishable difference between the strings and there definitely is.

I went with the assumption that the first one was the one we were evaluating. If instead it was the second string then the real one is characterized by a lack of a W pattern

peace
petrushka on January 7, 2016 at 11:27 pm said:

While I am waiting for you to tell us which is the real data, you might try my second submission, which has one original and real dataset, and four scrambled versions. No random ones, although the scrambling was done by an online scrambler.

I intend to submit a dozen or so sets. It tales a bit of time to convert alpha strings to numeric. I might write a little program to do this.
fifthmonarchyman on January 7, 2016 at 11:31 pm said:

Did you give it a try? Did you see a pattern?

This is meant to be a collective exercise I want to know if you see the same things I see

peace
fifthmonarchyman on January 7, 2016 at 11:36 pm said:

It’s my hypothesis that humans will experience roughly the same results and that those results will not be duplicated by computers.

peace
petrushka on January 7, 2016 at 11:37 pm said:

I intend to submit a number of sets and ask you to demonstrate your ability to distinguish data from scrambled data or random data.
fifthmonarchyman on January 7, 2016 at 11:39 pm said:

petrushka: you might try my second submission, which has one original and real dataset, and four scrambled versions. No random ones, although the scrambling was done by an online scrambler.

in order to do a comparison you need to tell me which one is the real string so that I can load the game properly,

Or better yet give it a go your self and report your findings and I see If I can duplicate them

peace
petrushka on January 7, 2016 at 11:40 pm said:

My intentions are quite simple. I will test your ability to distinguish data from gibberish. In a week or so I will publish a link to the public source of my data, so any disinterested person can tell whether I have been honest and have done the submissions without introducing errors.
petrushka on January 7, 2016 at 11:45 pm said:

fifthmonarchyman: in order to do a comparison you need to tell me which one is the real string so that I can load the game properly,

I’m sorry, but that makes no sense. I’m submitting the data in arbitrary order. It is up to you to distinguish real from random or scrambled.
fifthmonarchyman on January 7, 2016 at 11:47 pm said:

petrushka: I intend to submit a number of sets and ask you to demonstrate your ability to distinguish data from scrambled data or random data.

The game is not about my unique abilities I have none it’s about our ability as humans.

If you want to maintain an adversarial position instead of going with the intent of the game I suggest you give me multiple sets of 2 strings each

1) some with one real and one random string
2) some with two random strings

and see if I can distinguish set one and not set two

It would not help us to do any real hypothesis testing but it might allow you to catch me making a mistake so that I might look a little foolish, If that is your goal

peace
fifthmonarchyman on January 7, 2016 at 11:54 pm said:

petrushka: I’m sorry, but that makes no sense. I’m submitting the data in arbitrary order. It is up to you to distinguish real from random or scrambled.

Apparently you have not been paying attention.

There is a “global” pattern to a nonrandom noncomputable string, When I compare a real string with a randomized one or a model. I do not go into the process knowing what the real pattern is, I learn the pattern by comparing the strings.

I won’t be able to tell you which one of the two strings is the real one I will only be able to tell you that they are different if one is a nonrandom noncomputable string.

This ability is not some secret gift I have it is simply the pattern recognition skill that we humans share

Get it?

peace
petrushka on January 7, 2016 at 11:57 pm said:

fifthmonarchyman: The game is not about my unique abilities I have none it’s about our ability as humans.

Well, of course it is adversarial. You have made an extraordinary claim about pattern recognition.

I have submitted my strings to pattern recognition recognition software, and have negative results. I see no distinguishing pattern, even after you told me what to look for.

So it’s really up to you to demonstrate in a double blind test that you and your software can do what you have claimed for it.

Of course this is adversarial.
petrushka on January 8, 2016 at 12:00 am said:

This should not be a surprise. I have said a number of times on these threads that I accept the possibility that you can find hidden patterns in some kinds of data. But I intend to rummage around on public data sources and find real data that slips through your net. This is not something I’m just now springing on you.
fifthmonarchyman on January 8, 2016 at 12:03 am said:

petrushka: I see no distinguishing pattern, even after you told me what to look for.

Are you actually saying that you can’t tell the difference between the strings wile causally playing the game? Have you tried casually playing the game? I don’t think you have

petrushka: Of course this is adversarial.

It that is how you want to play it then I suggest you proceed as I described.
Give me different sets but don’t tell if if they are both random or not and see if I can guess.

Or you could just take a minute and read the paper that conclusively demonstrated the concept

peace
petrushka on January 8, 2016 at 12:06 am said:

Your post should go to guano. I ask you to withdraw the claim that I have lied.

Exactly HOW THE FUCK do you think I produced the image if I have not tried the game? Not to mention, the rather extensive discussion between myself and others as to how to format the data.
fifthmonarchyman on January 8, 2016 at 12:07 am said:

petrushka: But I intend to rummage around on public data sources and find real data that slips through your net.

What would it prove if you found some “designed” data that gave an inclusive result in my game?

peace