Darwinbots Forum
General => Off Topic => RANT => Topic started by: gymsum on June 09, 2008, 04:28:34 PM
-
I will no longer respond in the Crow post (http://www.darwinbots.com/Forum/index.php?showtopic=2800) sicne the discussion is far from crows.
Numbers have been used to quantify ideas of behaviors or other ideas which are not measured by any object undergoing such implications of that number. For example, a rock with 100Kg of mass will weigh 980 newtons, but the rock dose not need to know it to have this result. So the idea of 100,000 grams having an aplied force of 9.8 times its mass is only necessary to a being that understands the concept of a number better than quantifying how many offspring it had, or how much food it needs. The same is true with velocity vectors, the result can be made the same regardless of the numbers, because the numbers are quantifying the result, and the result is quantifying the numbers (otherwise the numbers do not truely quantify what it means perceptively to gain that result). This is because numbers are meaningless beyond the experience of their use to quantify something.
To first understand how we quantify our thoughts, we must understand how we categorize a thought. Since its entirely up to the individual, the reciever must dictate how a thought corrolates with another thought, to allow for conotations and denotations (our two main categories for how one sifts through information presented to them). Once the intention is understood, the thought can be labled an entity, name (self-dependent and exo-dependent, meaning this can be determined by the speaker or reciever, dont care if they are words, that is part of my point to the counting system, but to avoid ovderlaps in theory we will assume exo-dependent means the information category is depednant on another part of the speach, or the speaker). To begin we start with the basics: Who?
To know what a reciever is seeing, it must be able to know if they recognize something or someone. To a being having experienced nothing before, comes across a rock face on a cliff, it will recognize it later, key to knowing the environment. But for every object we percieve, there exsists a finite amount of more objects to be viewed and given a name(s)-to avoid arguments over things like specialization vs intelligence of the being. We can assume that if the being is alive, its entire field of perception holds some emptyness to it, meaning there is room to see. For every object seen, there stands to be an infinite amount of information withheld from simply knowing its name, or whom we call something or someone. To really understand the environment, this being must ask more than just who, it needs some way to classify the type of entity (another set of who) so that if it calls a rock a rose, and it sees a similar rock it can know that is part of the rose group (or whatever it dictates to be a rock). This allows for a set of more complex questions which must be fufilled before the being can have any real intelligence to it. It knows who and what, but it doesnt haev a clue for what its food is and what it needs to do in order to survive.
The next step is to assume the being quantified emotions much similar to the way it quantified the categories of thought. These emotions can be used to quntify another experience, time. The question of when did something occur is key to answering the next set of question we have yet to quantify for this being. A change in emotional status, such as hunger or pain, or pleasure and abbundance can be used to relate to them something I will get to later. The being comes to a rock and takes the coarse of a lion to run up it, since the being enjoyed watching a mountain lion pounce from cliff rock to cliff rock, the being attempts it and falls, the change in emotional status changes the way the being percieves rocks, mountain lions and/or itself simultaneously, as the experience is challenging the limited experience of this being, assuming it still yet has to identify itself. For all it knows it could have been a mountain lion, this result begs to differ with its memories. So through a grace of mistake, the being now understands a concept of when, it saw a mountain lion previously, attempted to follow after it in the same fasion, and failed. A chronological order based on emotional memory. I wont go into quantifying emotions as that would be like applying smileys to every number without a simple system.
Because it now understands a process of memories which dictate who, what and when, it can begin to draw a map of its surroundings. The rock was there, I went somewhere else, and the mountain lion is still in its cave. Its not incredibly accurate, its not GPS, but the being knows from its perspective that its below a rock, and a lion. It knows somewhat more about the mountain lion and rock than the earth he landed on, and has somewhate of an idea of where it is. As it explores and experiences more, this expands and its concept for quantifying distances changes with each alteration to the previously quantified thoughts.
Lastly comes why. Why did the being fall where the mountain lion had succeede? For a being with nothing to go by as far as a previous generation, this is quite difficult to answer with one experience alone. It must attempt to follow the behaviors of many other beings to fully understand its place in the ecosystem, and/or know what its purpose is for asking such a stupid question. Its quite obvious to us that if we saw a mountain lion jumping, we wouldnt attempt to do likewise, we'ld shoot it because its been taught to us that the lion is for food. The being will eventually know what is food, after trying everything and anything it comes across (assuming nothing can kill him). So how long will it take the being to achieve a full answer to all of its questions? Thats another set of numbers to be given a meaning.
For evey thought, there exsists 5 others to give that thought a meaning. So we can take the total entries in the Encyclopedia Encarta and assume that it contains ALL current and up to date information within its archives. For every entry, there will exsist 5 sets of information to explain the concept fully. For every set, there will be an entirely other set of information to be used in the Dictionary to agian relate the 5 sets to themselves. So what is the total amount of information that can possibly be gained from the universe? Well its quite large, so large in fact, that the Universe itself would fit in it multiple times if it were quantified as volume.
n to infinity
C = (E^5*D^25)*L where c is a constant for universal translation, and L is the total number of known languages in use (not including theoreticals).
CB = all known celestial bodies in the Universe
LB = CB/all celestial bodies in the Universe life can exsist.
((((E^5*D^25)^n)*S)*CB*LB)^5)/C = T, where E is Encyclopedia entries, D is Dictionary definitions, and n is the the current thougth in the series, or information (assuming something like the letter a is 1 on the scale), and T is the total number of ideas and S is all the species of the world with more brain power than bacteria. (this is assuming all information catilogued in the Encyclopedia on astrology and astronomy contain full details such as a database for all known stars and systesm). If this assumption holds false, simply add the numbers to E and D before raisng them to the 5th or 25th. Also, I cannot find any information which holds the total information of any alien species, so we cannot fully calculate the entire Universal Unknown, but we can do our very limited perspective.
To know how much of the total information has been collected (not assuming this information adds to the previous series), we take all the knonw information an individual posses for say 100 people world wide, multiply that by the total population of the earth and divide it by the Total. So while we learn more, the percentage of knonw information grows incredibly slow, while the total number of known things grows exponentialy.
we will assume th knonw information average and call it I.
I*(P)/T = k where I is knowledge average (or iq if it suits you, doesnt matter requires same amount of information), P is the Population of the Earth and T is total kowledge.
The unknown I assume is incalculable, since T is geometric to itself, or a reflection of itself due to the quantifying problem that numbers can overlap and mean differnt things.
Edited: Realized this did not include all bodies of information.
-
Ok, after working the definitions and the problem, I have simplified the entire Totality formula.
Since we know that E^5 is relative to time, we can exchange E for time but only if we have another definition, an average for the amount of time to learn something, to do so we can extrapolate from the 5 categories which we numerated to mean a different question. The amount of time to learn is difficult to calculate, as it would be the sum of all known names/things/events/places/reasons for the reciever divdided by their IQ (which can assume quantifies some abilitiy to process information and/or think) and multiplied by its numerical value, 1 for Who, 2 for What, 3 for When, 4 for Where, and 5 for Why, as it requires the previous set of series to complete a thought for those with trouble orienting thoughts and what is important. So to remember a face in a room of 5 people for someone with an IQ of 134 should remember in v^5*T/(T-(IQ*T)), since it would requrie all known knowledge for someone with lower IQs. The time calculated can be found be multiplying the result by IQ, the result then should be in seconds (assuming again, that the IQ provided is 99.9% accurate, and that the IQ represents the ability of the person to process information over a period of time). For the above the simplified and reduced version is:
Te = 134*(1^5*5^1 /(5^1-(134*5^1))) = one minute, which is considerably fast for someone with such a low IQ.
So we now have a value for how long it is to learn something related to all previous knowledge, which assumes that the more you learn and remember, the harder it is as you progress, or as you collect too much information. That is assuming that all humans have a finite amount of memory, which seems to hold true since we can remember a life time, but often lose the ability to learn as fast. If you dont want to assume this, then simple take: (AGE) log(base10) IQ/v^5, where the log assumes that there is no limit on information that can be learned, and that the amount of information stored is relative to time.
So the amount of total information in the known Universe, could be defined using time, assuming that no information exsists before we apreciate it. Since the definition of time or the answer to when was related to emotional markers, we know that each experience draws on those markers, and thus as time progress the amount of information would thus grow indefinitely.
(14^(Time-Te)*S*CB*LB^v)/C = T, where 14 is the sum of all numerical values raised to the power of time, or the point at which it is now untilit is discovered, or Time-Te.
Feel free to tweek with it some, and ask me if any of it is too confusing. Enjoy.
-
I will no longer respond in the Crow post sicne the discussion is far from crows.
Numbers have been used to quantify ideas of behaviors or other ideas which are not measured by any object undergoing such implications of that number. For example, a rock with 100Kg of mass will weigh 980 newtons, but the rock dose not need to know it to have this result. So the idea of 100,000 grams having an aplied force of 9.8 times its mass is only necessary to a being that understands the concept of a number better than quantifying how many offspring it had, or how much food it needs. The same is true with velocity vectors, the result can be made the same regardless of the numbers, because the numbers are quantifying the result, and the result is quantifying the numbers (otherwise the numbers do not truely quantify what it means perceptively to gain that result). This is because numbers are meaningless beyond the experience of their use to quantify something.
To first understand how we quantify our thoughts, we must understand how we categorize a thought. Since its entirely up to the individual, the reciever must dictate how a thought corrolates with another thought, to allow for conotations and denotations (our two main categories for how one sifts through information presented to them). Once the intention is understood, the thought can be labled an entity, name (self-dependent and exo-dependent, meaning this can be determined by the speaker or reciever, dont care if they are words, that is part of my point to the counting system, but to avoid ovderlaps in theory we will assume exo-dependent means the information category is depednant on another part of the speach, or the speaker). To begin we start with the basics: Who?
To know what a reciever is seeing, it must be able to know if they recognize something or someone. To a being having experienced nothing before, comes across a rock face on a cliff, it will recognize it later, key to knowing the environment. But for every object we percieve, there exsists a finite amount of more objects to be viewed and given a name(s)-to avoid arguments over things like specialization vs intelligence of the being. We can assume that if the being is alive, its entire field of perception holds some emptyness to it, meaning there is room to see. For every object seen, there stands to be an infinite amount of information withheld from simply knowing its name, or whom we call something or someone. To really understand the environment, this being must ask more than just who, it needs some way to classify the type of entity (another set of who) so that if it calls a rock a rose, and it sees a similar rock it can know that is part of the rose group (or whatever it dictates to be a rock). This allows for a set of more complex questions which must be fufilled before the being can have any real intelligence to it. It knows who and what, but it doesnt haev a clue for what its food is and what it needs to do in order to survive.
The next step is to assume the being quantified emotions much similar to the way it quantified the categories of thought. These emotions can be used to quntify another experience, time. The question of when did something occur is key to answering the next set of question we have yet to quantify for this being. A change in emotional status, such as hunger or pain, or pleasure and abbundance can be used to relate to them something I will get to later. The being comes to a rock and takes the coarse of a lion to run up it, since the being enjoyed watching a mountain lion pounce from cliff rock to cliff rock, the being attempts it and falls, the change in emotional status changes the way the being percieves rocks, mountain lions and/or itself simultaneously, as the experience is challenging the limited experience of this being, assuming it still yet has to identify itself. For all it knows it could have been a mountain lion, this result begs to differ with its memories. So through a grace of mistake, the being now understands a concept of when, it saw a mountain lion previously, attempted to follow after it in the same fasion, and failed. A chronological order based on emotional memory. I wont go into quantifying emotions as that would be like applying smileys to every number without a simple system.
Because it now understands a process of memories which dictate who, what and when, it can begin to draw a map of its surroundings. The rock was there, I went somewhere else, and the mountain lion is still in its cave. Its not incredibly accurate, its not GPS, but the being knows from its perspective that its below a rock, and a lion. It knows somewhat more about the mountain lion and rock than the earth he landed on, and has somewhate of an idea of where it is. As it explores and experiences more, this expands and its concept for quantifying distances changes with each alteration to the previously quantified thoughts.
Lastly comes why. Why did the being fall where the mountain lion had succeede? For a being with nothing to go by as far as a previous generation, this is quite difficult to answer with one experience alone. It must attempt to follow the behaviors of many other beings to fully understand its place in the ecosystem, and/or know what its purpose is for asking such a stupid question. Its quite obvious to us that if we saw a mountain lion jumping, we wouldnt attempt to do likewise, we'ld shoot it because its been taught to us that the lion is for food. The being will eventually know what is food, after trying everything and anything it comes across (assuming nothing can kill him). So how long will it take the being to achieve a full answer to all of its questions? Thats another set of numbers to be given a meaning.
You're in murky waters, specifically cognition theory. While what you're saying isn't necessarily incorrect, you can't take it as fact that it's the way animals and people really work. The mind is a murky place and there are as many theories as their are researchers. Most modern science takes the brain as a black box, where you can only guess at the input and try and observe the output, with the process in between unknowable (but the end results of whatever process it is knowable). Though this methodology is falling out of favor.
For evey thought, there exsists 5 others to give that thought a meaning.
You mean the who, what, when, where, why of newspaper reporters? 5 Ws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_what_when_where_why)? First off, you're missing one. "How". Second, not all knowable data fits so nicely in that framework. It's more an information gathering heuristic to quickly gain a grasp of the situation in a short time (very important for a reporter with a deadline who doesn't care about niggling details). In science settings, it isn't used. Instead, the heuristic is the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method), which is more nebulous in what sort of questions it asks. And in another comparison, statistics doesn't use any of the 5 Ws. It uses yes/no questions like "does this data support the null hypothesis". After these yes/no questions are answered, it asks things like "how confident am I about my conclusions", which does use the 5Ws, so they do have a place. They're just incomplete.
I guess the point I'm making is that you shouldn't use constructs of language to try and find a fundamental level of information and its processing, because you're already introducing bias (maybe there's information which is an answer to a question that can not be asked in English). You have to delve in to abstract mathematics. Thankfully you aren't the first person to think about this sort of thing, and there's a whole branch of mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory) that deals with exactly this sort of thing, in its purely abstract form. Doesn't necessarily address how life forms process data, of course, but that's the realm of cognition science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition) and behavioral biology maybe.
So we can take the total entries in the Encyclopedia Encarta and assume that it contains ALL current and up to date information within its archives.
That's a mighty big assumption. Wikipedia generally scores higher in coverage tests than print encyclopedias, and it still is a far cry from covering all current and up to date information.
For every entry, there will exsist 5 sets of information to explain the concept fully. For every set, there will be an entirely other set of information to be used in the Dictionary to agian relate the 5 sets to themselves. So what is the total amount of information that can possibly be gained from the universe? Well its quite large, so large in fact, that the Universe itself would fit in it multiple times if it were quantified as volume.
You lost me. You're saying that the amount of information in the universe is so large that the universe wouldn't be able to hold an encyclodedia with all that information, because it would be so freakin huge? Possibly, but remember that most information in the universe is probably redundant. Statistical significance can be gained using only a small sample of the global population. Plus data compression is possible for data that is highly patternistic.
n to infinity
C = (E^5*D^25)*L where c is a constant for universal translation, and L is the total number of known languages in use (not including theoreticals).
CB = all known celestial bodies in the Universe
LB = CB/all celestial bodies in the Universe life can exsist.
((((E^5*D^25)^n)*S)*CB*LB)^5)/C = T, where E is Encyclopedia entries, D is Dictionary definitions, and n is the the current thougth in the series, or information (assuming something like the letter a is 1 on the scale), and T is the total number of ideas and S is all the species of the world with more brain power than bacteria. (this is assuming all information catilogued in the Encyclopedia on astrology and astronomy contain full details such as a database for all known stars and systesm). If this assumption holds false, simply add the numbers to E and D before raisng them to the 5th or 25th. Also, I cannot find any information which holds the total information of any alien species, so we cannot fully calculate the entire Universal Unknown, but we can do our very limited perspective.
Leaving aside the pseudoscience, judging what you have on purely mathematical grounds, you can't just make up equations and raise them to various powers. Like why are we raising dictionary definitions to the 25th power? Why not the 24th power? Or the 26th power? Plus what sort of units are you using? You have to make sure that the units of your equations properly balance (ala Stoichiometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoichiometry)). It looks to me like your variable T will have units of something like entries^5 * definitions^25, which is a bogus unit of measure if I ever saw one.
Also, many of your quantities aren't quantifiable, but are qualitative ideas. For instance "is all the species of the world with more brain power than bacteria" assumes first of all that a quantifiable measure of intelligence is possible (a shady prospect even amoung humans). It also has the obvious bias of calling intelligence brain power, and thus gives preferential treatment to things with brains (but I can overlook that as a colorful use of language, if I need to). Third, you're assuming that bacteria can have no "ideas", or information. But that's clearly not the case. A bacterial genome, for instance, certainly contains a great deal of non-trivial information. In addition, bacteria, like most life, can contain data that lies outside its genome. Called epigenetic information. Plus probably a whole host of other things bacteria can do that I'm not touching on. Forth, it seems that your fundamentally assuming that all information in the universe is an idea that is knowable. Which is certainly a basis for science but I think it's a pretty big if. Maybe there's data that's fundamentally unknowable. Should that count?
To know how much of the total information has been collected (not assuming this information adds to the previous series), we take all the knonw information an individual posses for say 100 people world wide, multiply that by the total population of the earth and divide it by the Total.
100 people is not statistically significant, I don't think.
So while we learn more, the percentage of knonw information grows incredibly slow, while the total number of known things grows exponentialy.
I think you mistyped. Did you mean that the total number of unknown things grows exponentially? If so, what is your basis for this assertion. Your previous made up equation? Something you read? I don't think you can just assume this a priori/from first principles.
we will assume th knonw information average and call it I.
I*(P)/T = k where I is knowledge average (or iq if it suits you, doesnt matter requires same amount of information), P is the Population of the Earth and T is total kowledge.
Again, you can't just make up equations to suit your needs. What proof have you given me that this equation is an accurate depiction of reality? I can make up an equation that would seem to say the exact opposite:
T/P = k
where T is the total information that is possible to know, P is the population of all substances (life, molecules, sentience, etc.) capable of storing and retrieving data, and k is the information constant, which is 1.0 data * holders, to an accuracy of +- 9.24 * 10^-20 data * holders. According to my (entirely fictious, mind you) equation, as the total number of things to know increases, so does the number of things capable of understanding that new information. And the reverse is also true.
The unknown I assume is incalculable, since T is geometric to itself, or a reflection of itself due to the quantifying problem that numbers can overlap and mean differnt things.
incalculable is not a recognized term in science. Did you mean uncountably infinite? Also, in what way can something be geometric (exponential?) to itself? And what is the quantifying problem? I think the core problem here is that you hear people using terms you are not familiar with (countably vs. uncountably infinite, etc etc), and think they are making stuff up, so you can make stuff up to (hint: they are not. You might not know everything, so you should actually ask questions about the terms another person is using if you do not understand them). Botsareus also had this phenomenon as well, I think. But it's not true. If you do invent a new idea, and try to describe it in words, you need to define it first. Being obtuse and being clever are not the same thing.
Since we know that E^5 is relative to time,
We do? Maybe the body of all known knowledge is constant, and the more we learn the more an alien species somewhere else forgets. We are talking about universal knowledge, here, which may have properties we are unaware. Now, we can take it as a base assumption. But if we do we need to use language like "if we assume that..." instead of "we know that...".
and multiplied by its numerical value, 1 for Who, 2 for What, 3 for When, 4 for Where, and 5 for Why,
Why is "Why" exactly 5 times as much information as "who"? By what reasoning can you make that claim?
as it requires the previous set of series to complete a thought for those with trouble orienting thoughts and what is important. So to remember a face in a room of 5 people for someone with an IQ of 134 should remember in v^5*T/(T-(IQ*T)),
You know my stance on made up equations. And you didn't define v. Is it velocity? That would explain why knowledge is relative
since it would requrie all known knowledge for someone with lower IQs. The time calculated can be found be multiplying the result by IQ, the result then should be in seconds (assuming again, that the IQ provided is 99.9% accurate,
Really? Would the units change from seconds to meters if the IQ provided was only 98% accurate? And why 99.9%, and not, say, 99.89%, or 99.91%? You wouldn't be making up random error thresholds, would you? Because you know my stance on made up equations (I disapprove).
Te = 134*(1^5*5^1 /(5^1-(134*5^1))) = one minute, which is considerably fast for someone with such a low IQ.
You never defined Te. Also, you equation as presented gives an answer of Te = -1.007... seconds. Which is not the same as one minute. Not to mention my disapproval of made up equations (although I do seem to keep mentioning it...)
So we now have a value for how long it is to learn something related to all previous knowledge, which assumes that the more you learn and remember, the harder it is as you progress, or as you collect too much information. That is assuming that all humans have a finite amount of memory, which seems to hold true since we can remember a life time, but often lose the ability to learn as fast.
Indeed, the possible information retention of humans is largely unknown. Old people seem to have a harder time learning new things, but that might be a function of stubbornness instead of limitations of the mind. But I will concede a possible upper bound on the information a single human brain might hold. But I would also point out that with the possibility of transhuman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism) improvements, the capacity for information retention may not hold constant across all time (or even in the relatively near future).
If you dont want to assume this, then simple take: (AGE) log(base10) IQ/v^5, where the log assumes that there is no limit on information that can be learned, and that the amount of information stored is relative to time.
I fail to see how this equation is derived. Again, made up equations are not cool. What would the Fonze say?
So the amount of total information in the known Universe, could be defined using time, assuming that no information exsists before we apreciate it. Since the definition of time or the answer to when was related to emotional markers, we know that each experience draws on those markers, and thus as time progress the amount of information would thus grow indefinitely.
It's possible that black holes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox) might be able to destroy information. So it's possible that this could balance increases in information.
(14^(Time-Te)*S*CB*LB^v)/C = T, where 14 is the sum of all numerical values raised to the power of time, or the point at which it is now untilit is discovered, or Time-Te.
You can't raise something to the power of time, without balancing it on the other side of the equation with a similar exponential (though I doubt such an equation would be meaningful), since the stoichiometry won't balance, and won't even be deterministic. Again, made up equations are bad.
Feel free to tweek with it some, and ask me if any of it is too confusing. Enjoy.
Indeed. I am especially confused by your cavalier use of mathematics without the accompanying statistical analysis of real world data or theoretical underpinnings in information theory.
-
Nums, he's just yanking your chain, making up more and more outragous shit as he goes just to see how long he can keep you on the hook. Don't be suckerred.
-
I can't help it. I see total cruff and I just want to thoroughly debunk it line for line. It's like this xkcd (http://www.xkcd.com/406/) comic. And this one (http://www.xkcd.com/386/). Somewhere between the two probably. I'd consider it a character flaw if I didn't learn so much looking up stuff on wikipedia in the process.
-
I made the assumption that in order to gain a new idea, previous ideas needed to exsist... And true, I dont know anything about the brain, but oops. THen I ued relatively longer equations with no powers, and simplified them, but then again it is made up, thats because Im not willing to spend my life collecting the data. Also, according to whoever's in a wheelcahir and famous (correct me I dont care at this point), blackholes do not destroy all the information and apparently release the information contained very slowly. Also, I presented everything with a fictional backing, so my mathematics match only the model I presented, I dont know if I made the claim it was a real world model or not, but definitely shouldn't be taken as one, its merely a system with a lion, rock, and a stupid being with a relatively low IQ. So I don't see where real world statistics need apply to the equations fo the model, as it isnt even a real world model. So it would seem you overreacted to my post.
Secondly, if you followed the model you would have seen a simple addition, to go from who to what took information of the named thing and identify it to a larger group (or what it is relative to all other known thigns). SO to know why took who what when and where, and since I assumed why had more to do with reasoning than how, how was not used as it was assumed that it had a similar meaning to why. Also why would knowledge follow the basics of thermodynamics? If so I'ld have to say your purposing something without any fictional or real backing.
-
I don't even think your math matches the simplified version you were presenting. Raising things to arbitrary powers (especially arbitrary integer powers) is patently absurd when you're talking about physical laws.
Information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory) does talk about entropy, but it isn't the same thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy) that you remember from thermodynamics. It talks about the amount of information in a series of symbols. Purely random data has high informational entropy, and can't be compressed very well. Data that is a million zeros has low informational entropy.
-
Well um..., gymsum.
You tend to like calculations and mathematics, then here is a little test. Anwser the questions correct and I will serious read your post. If you can´t figure this out, well...
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/substitute.png)
The questions speak for itself, you may anwser the questions. And yes indeed I am to lazy to make up questions myself.
(only question 1 and 2, there isn´t any info for 3)
And I am pretty sure, you will make a fool out of yourself.
-
Also, Peter, you should remember to attribute (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/) xkcd comics when you embed them in posts. Probably just linking back to the xkcd website is enough, but I'm not a huge copyleft aficionado, so I couldn't say for sure.
-
Well um..., gymsum.
You tend to like calculations and mathematics, then here is a little test. Anwser the questions correct and I will serious read your post. If you can´t figure this out, well...
-
Wow, you have shocked me. I actually thought you'd dismiss these as too easy to be worth the effort, but not only didn't you dismiss them, you got them wrong. I have overestimated you. I will have to re-examine my entire world view. Maybe I overestimate humanity in general.
Is it that you are not aware of SUVAT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUVAT) equations, or that you forgot that they apply in this case? You talk of thermodynamic equations, so I had assumed you had taken a physics course (where this is really week 1 stuff). Trying to solve it using guess and check is certainly, um, an interesting approach, but it won't give you a right answer. The first is simple, because he'll manage to catch and devour you before he reaches his top speed, so you don't have to build a piecewise function or anything weird like that. The proper answer is, assuming I'm not wrong either, 37.302 meters (not feet) (also rounded to the nearest thousandth place). And lest you cry foul, I did this entirely using paper, pencil, and the windows calculator found in accessories. No guess and check, just very straightforward algebra.
The second question: running towards a raptor is a bad idea. He may have a bum leg, but his teeth will still work just fine. I think the proper answer is to run at an angle that's closer to the wounded raptor, but not entirely towards. It might be entirely towards the wounded raptor, but I don't think that's the general solution. Also, the raptors aren't stupid, and they'll change their course as their relative angle to you changes, so there's definitely some calculus involved. I don't have an answer right now, but I might flex my brain tonight since it's such an interesting problem.
Last, Peter specifically mentions that you don't need to answer the third question.
-
My question is why does the person run so slow? If I had a raptor running after me I think I would run faster than a ~17 second 100m dash. Or I would shoot it, whatever.
Oh and Numsgil, you obviously forgot to add in reaction time (I guess we can keep the instantaneous acceleration) so I'd knock off a meter or two.
Xkcd is almost purely hilarious, for those who haven't read through the comics here a some good ones: Trolling (http://xkcd.com/351/), Ballmer Peak (http://xkcd.com/323/), Labrynth Puzzle (http://xkcd.com/246/), and Battle Room (http://xkcd.com/241/)
-
I thought about reaction time, but it doesn't mention the human's acceleration and uses the word "quickly". So I figured it should be taken as instantaneous (maybe you spotted it before it spotted you).
-
No idea what a suvat is at this point.
I did answer the question right, only I gave it in time (secs). in 6.13 seconds the human travels 37 some meters... Also the human is going three body lengths a second if the human is 6 feet tall, which is quite fast for such a slow and underdeveloped animal. 6.13*6m/s...... I didnt use guess and check.... I did it in my head as I have always done with algebra.... Sorry my answer was in worng format.
-
No idea what a suvat is at this point.
Well, do you understand the concept of hyperlinks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink)? How about reading links I make (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUVAT).
I did answer the question right, only I gave it in time (secs).
Yeah, that's not the same thing. You might get liucky and the teacher'll give you partial credit, though, but the question isn't answered right.
in 6.13 seconds the human travels 37 some meters...
Also the human is going three body lengths a second if the human is 6 feet tall, which is quite fast for such a slow and underdeveloped animal.
6 m/s is roughly like 12 miles per hour. If you double meters per second, you can get a rough estimate for miles per hour. 12 mph is totally doable, even by me (and I'm not a runner by trade, though if a raptor were chasing me you can bet that I would sure pick it up fast )
6.13*6m/s...... I didnt use guess and check.... I did it in my head as I have always done with algebra.... Sorry my answer was in worng format.
Really? You took the square root of 89 in your head to three significant digits? And then added it to three and divided by two? All in your head? Well then, I am impressed. Oh, but...
and the human only went 30 feet out, most likely 5. something but this is all right on the computer and I hate computer calculators as I prefer graphing calcs.
As a chance to redeem yourself, suppose the first question said that the raptor's top speed was 10 m/s. You know, that one with the bum leg. What's the distance you can get from the raptor before it devours you?
-
Umm I did it much easier. Remember d=vt. well I just remembered that accelerating from 0 to anything at any rate will give you a sumation of distances for the inital few seconds, and then once it hits top speed its simple addition. So I did 20/4 and came up with about 5 seconds, and that put the raptor 60 meters up, and the human coudl only cover 6*5 meters, or 30, so it would be 70 meters out or 10 meters from the raptor by then, simple subtraction got me the extra second and some it would take to catch up. As for the second question, I was never to good with vectors, especially ones like that that leave a large room for an answer of interpretation. If you run to the two faster raptors, you're dead sooner. So I just went with immediate easiest described, otherwise I have a range of 90-180 degrees of choices to choose from and I never took calculous.
So redemption: its 20 meters away I assume and still accelerates at 4m/s2, so in 2.5 seconds it will reach top speed, and in that time will have convered only 22 meteres, and the human runs 6m/s, so we can do 10-6 4m/s is the difference.. I would say about 6 seconds as its half the distance and halfe the speed, and t=d/v and 40/20=20/10.
And the distance would be 6*6 about 36 meters away. I think thats correct.
-
I never took calculous.
You're missing out. Calculus makes all of that hard Algebra II math suddenly make sense. Calculus is like the string theory of math (only, you know, provable)
So redemption: its 20 meters away I assume
You assume wrong. The problem says 40 meters away. But I can pretend that it said 20 meters away and give you some partial credit...
And the distance would be 6*6 about 36 meters away. I think thats correct.
I get 48.75, assuming an initial distance of 20 meters. I checked it twice. That gives you a relative error of 26%. Not low enough for partial credit. Sorry. Did you forget to add the distance the human covers while the raptor is accelerating (you'd still be wrong, but you might be less wrong. You should be able to arrive at an exact answer, using nothing but fractions if that's what you prefer).
-
Gymsum are you doing this on purpose?
Here you will get a (simple)calculation lesson.
I've tried to do it like you described. But then with right anwsers.
distance between gymsum and raptor
20 meters
acceleration raptor: 4m/s2
topspeed raptor:10ms
speed gymsum 6m/s.
Here you go with your 2,5 sec acceleration.
2,5 * 10 / 2= 12,5m
Here you see the human is faster
2,5 * 6 = 15m
Wow 2,5 meters more distance.
15-12,5 = 2,5m
Now it is 22,5meter.
20+2,5=22,5m
Speed difference is 4m/s, how much seconds.
22,5/4 = 5,615s
And here we see the distance the human has walked before it was eaten.
(5,615+2,5) *6=
8,125*6 = 48,75
And just as you, it is all calculated with that gray stuff, up there in my head that the whole time screams, just use a calculator .
As for the second question, you may anwser it simple. You may also try it with that the raptors changes every second it angle or something.
Imagine that the raptor exactly knows what you're going to do, as some kind of mindreader. Inmidiatly he takes the right angle to get you and he goes in a straight line. This means that the angle where you survive the longest, is the point where both raptors get you at desame time. Remember they go in a straigt line inmidiatly to the point where they are going the eat you.
Use a calculator, and think well. Just act like this is a test. Maybe then we'll think you're smart
-
No thanks.
Trying to evade raptors seems extremely irrelevant to the topic. Also I have thought more about the time lapse purpose of the equation. If you recall the 4d sphere. Well imagine that all knowledge is contained within the dimension its percieved through, that means that things like location and distances are 3d. But as each progression of events unfolds, the amount of amplification in entropy remains to be the same if you consider that entropy might be conserved, as a relative way to allow for the Universe to experience varrying levels of Entropy, not saying it has a limit, but that entropy is relative to everything in the universe. So as each event happens, the amount of information is 4d in nature, since entropy follows an inverse squares law should you graph it as a wave, as time continues the amount of entropy from something (previous) remains constant. That is to say the butterfly flapping its wings once to start a hurricane, could die moments later but the entropy of the wing has already continued in the hurricane. So all knowledge of the future can be found by taking the Universal time stamp of the future, subtracting the opresent time stamp from it, and then raising it to the power of Time. This means that no matter what action is taken, the entropy of that action continues indefinitely (cause and effects can be described in this way, as the past cannot be changed). Now if you're wanting to discuss theoretical physics, I'm all yours, but I simply have no time to imagine a raptor, its liek trying to imagine a moose that stands 20 feet from hoof to ear. Its not really practical because it doesnt occur in nature anymore, however the entroyp it created continues to this day, in the form of oil and global warming.
Regardless of what some DB discussion bot makers think of my ideas, this discussion was meant for understanding knowledge on a universal scale.
-
No thanks.
Trying to evade raptors seems extremely irrelevant to the topic.
Inrelevant, raptors are inrelevant! Wait till a raptor finds you, I wonder what you will say then. Raptors inrelevant?
Also I have thought more about the time lapse purpose of the equation. If you recall the 4d sphere. Well imagine that all knowledge is contained within the dimension its percieved through, that means that things like location and distances are 3d.
So knowledge is a dimension, amazing. At this moment I will ask for sources. Oh, and this coused me to stop reading. Where are you at the moment, are there people with white coates, may you go outside.
Regardless of what some DB discussion bot makers think of my ideas, this discussion was meant for understanding knowledge on a universal scale.
So what do you want to know?
-
No thanks.
Trying to evade raptors seems extremely irrelevant to the topic.
...
Now if you're wanting to discuss theoretical physics, I'm all yours, but I simply have no time to imagine a raptor, its liek trying to imagine a moose that stands 20 feet from hoof to ear. Its not really practical because it doesnt occur in nature anymore, however the entroyp it created continues to this day, in the form of oil and global warming.
You're just mad because you got it wrong. Twice. And we'll see how useless it is when scientists take their T Rex DNA (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/) and clone it ala Jurassic Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic_Park). Sure raptors and rex's are different animals, but I think the principle is the same.
Also, dinosaurs (and mooses, since you mention it (moosi?)) didn't create oil and global warming. You should check out the straight dope (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060512.html).
Also I have thought more about the time lapse purpose of the equation. If you recall the 4d sphere. Well imagine that all knowledge is contained within the dimension its percieved through, that means that things like location and distances are 3d. But as each progression of events unfolds, the amount of amplification in entropy remains to be the same if you consider that entropy might be conserved, as a relative way to allow for the Universe to experience varrying levels of Entropy, not saying it has a limit, but that entropy is relative to everything in the universe. So as each event happens, the amount of information is 4d in nature, since entropy follows an inverse squares law should you graph it as a wave, as time continues the amount of entropy from something (previous) remains constant. That is to say the butterfly flapping its wings once to start a hurricane, could die moments later but the entropy of the wing has already continued in the hurricane. So all knowledge of the future can be found by taking the Universal time stamp of the future, subtracting the opresent time stamp from it, and then raising it to the power of Time. This means that no matter what action is taken, the entropy of that action continues indefinitely (cause and effects can be described in this way, as the past cannot be changed).
All my previous comments (can't raise things to the power of time!) apply here.
Regardless of what some DB discussion bot makers think of my ideas, this discussion was meant for understanding knowledge on a universal scale.
You see, you're not the first person to think of "information" in strictly abstract, relative terms. Some pretty smart guys got together and came up with information theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory). Information can be encoded as a string of bits. So all information is inherently one dimensional, if you want to look at it that way.
-
Raptors are always relevant.
The word incalculable isn't all that out there, nums. Have you heard of the busy beaver function?
-
That's usually called uncomputable, though, right? Not quite the same thing either, though it might be closer to what he had in mind originally.
Also, I'm going to amend my mention of raising things to the power of time. Raising things to the positive power of time is silly, but raising them to the negative power of time shows up a lot in the equations for damped springs. The rational that raising things to the power of time is necessary because they're geometric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series) doesn't make sense either. Geometric series are easily calculable.
-
Yeah, but the words calculable and computable are rather close relatives.
Also, exponential and logistic growth curves use positive time exponents.
-
Heh, right again. I need to be more careful when I declare things to be absurd, I've used e^-kt and e^kt often enough, so I have no excuse.
Though I would still say that exponential growth is a local phenomenon in time. That is, not something one would expect to exist over the long term, where an S curve is more common.
-
The root problem isn't something you'll be able to fix. When someone's ideas go unquestioned for too long, they never see the need to have the kind of rules we follow.
The method someone uses for putting together an argument depends on the obstacles they've had to deal with. If they have found ethos or pathos to be effective for a long time, switching away from it is really hard. Arguing using only logic is really counter-intuitive and most people won't pick it up (or even want to) unless they run into a certain kind of environment.
-
I used to use fun things like when my parents yelled at me I'd calmly point out the logical fallacies of their argument. Something like "because I said so" can be retorted using "ipse dixit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipsedixitism)!"
Been too long, though. I'm not nearly as impartially logical as I was in the past.
-
Its geometric to time because the fact that it was remembered means that information from the previous time is contained still, and still apart of the system. THis is waht Im trying to get at. Take for example this following simpler scenario:
You have a small child that's hungry, a table and an apple. Those are three facts which are seperable, the three bodies are not the same and have different information in each. If the chidl decides to let the fruit sit wihtout eating it, the fruit will rot and regardless of the decision made the information of the apple changes because of entropy. The child can slow or quicken this entropy by its own information or using another object in this imaginary room. The amount of information contained in this room over the period of T time, is I^T. Why? Well its because each piece of information grows exponentialy to time because as time progresses more information is created (thats not saying matter is created). The amount of information is easily time1*time2*time3 since 1*2*3 would 6, and the amount of information between any object and another is always duplicated by the fact that it has a history which can be observed, so the amount of information in the same space grows exponetially to the amount of time observed and not observed. Also in theoretical geometry the 4th dimension is raised to the power of time, assuming that time could be an axis of perspective which is considerably possible given the fact that humans have quite capable minds. And I dont have any hard facts to back this, but neither does the string theory. Anyways, fun discussion. The thing you pointed to Nums would be what I refer to as Modular thought, meaning anything can be said to mean anything through translation. Which basically means I've wasted everyone's time but nonetheless it was meant to get ppl to think about abstract ideas, like assigning information values. And dinosaurs I thought broke down into fossil fuels, along with plant matter; and moose havent made us to much fuel I dont think lol.
Aby.. wow... If I understood that, I'm crazy...
-
Just because something is increasing doesn't mean it has to be exponential. That's my point. Why can't it be F = kt, where F is facts, t is time, and k is some constant? So one second from now there'll be exactly k more facts in the universe then there were before.
-
Aby.. wow... If I understood that, I'm crazy...
Crazy? No. It's just that your way of deciding whether or not an idea is a good one is very different from mine. This makes it hard for me to agree with most of the things you say.
-
Just because something is increasing doesn't mean it has to be exponential. That's my point. Why can't it be F = kt, where F is facts, t is time, and k is some constant? So one second from now there'll be exactly k more facts in the universe then there were before.
because of the over lap, the fact becomes redundant to the point that its acuatually K*K*K...K times.... because the past is forever, and as an observer we can reuse information of the past multiple times, in fact so many times its geometric to the initial, as in overlap.
-
If facts become redundant, then the curve would could be C * exp(-k*t), meaning there are fewer and fewer new facts as time progresses (approaching some constant C).
-
If facts become redundant, then the curve would could be C * exp(-k*t), meaning there are fewer and fewer new facts as time progresses (approaching some constant C).
No no no. Its not a reduction, as the redundancy becomes seperaate to the fact, and is in itself another node of information in a seperate time reference, meaning it is not = to the previous or next set of redundant information. And I'm not familiar with that setup, exp(x,y)?
-
exp means e^ In this case C * exp(-k * t) is the equation for a decay curve. as t -> infinity, exp(-k * t) will approach 1.
Redundancy to me means this (#4 in this context) (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redundancy). So I don't think it's the right word for what you mean.
I assume you mean something like this: suppose some datum is true at time t = 0. If I know this at time t = 1, that is another datum, etc. etc. Something like that, right? I believe this is a form of recursion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion), another fun word that starts with r.
This gets in to some fuzzies... Because of the uncertainty principle, for instance, time and energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Energy-time_uncertainty_principle) have an uncertainty relation. Meaning that as you get more precise in your definition of a moment of time, you become less precise in your ability to measure energy or mass. I'm not sure exactly what the implications of that are, but I'm sure there's something important there.
Second, if the universe is recursive like that, it would mean that you could possibly compute it just by knowing the start conditions for the universe. Meaning that it is possible to know any one datum, just not all datums at once (unless you're not actually in the universe you're trying to understand).
And third, from a strictly practical point of view, the interesting information is a fraction of the available information. While it might not be possible to know everything, I still contend that it's possible to know everything you or anyone else has a desire to know. The charge of cobalt atom #352234-A in my body is of absolutely no concern to me.
-
Yes that would be the idea of a fractals and chaos. The difference between the numbers and the fractals is merely in geometric references as proportions rather than exact numbers, which still show infinite boundaries. Which is why even the "static" information is equally important within itself in every frame of reference, otherwise it could be moving incredibly slow and without the recursion it owuld be impossible to say it was moving at all, when relative to it billions of other things are moving much faster. So all information within a single intity there exsists an exponetial amount of information relative to time. As everything effects everything, the tidal gravity from an orbital object will in fact effect its trajectory, meaning that its previous position was nfinitely recorded throughout the universe at the speed of light, the same speed that tidal gravity changes effect everything.
-
Yes, the speed of gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity) is generally assumed to equal the speed of light.
You should also check out Zeno's Paradoxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes). The arrow paradox in particular seems interestingly close to what you're talking about.
Remember that once you get down to the quantum level, there's a great deal of randomness anyway. Meaning that even if you understood every state of every thing in the universe all at once, it would still be impossible to predict the fate of Shrodinger's cat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat). So the future will always have an element of uncertainty. That uncertainty can be understood through statistics, which is really a form of lossy compression.
So yes, if I want to exactly predict the flight of an arrow I would need to know the states of every atom in the universe at a time relative to its distance from the arrow. But in practice I can determine the flight of the arrow well enough to kill a man at 50 paces (I did get my Archery merit badge after all ). This is because I'm not really interested in the exact flight of the arrow, just it's probably path to N degrees of certainty. Thought of this way, we should take heart of this fact. There will always be an element of risk involved in every endeavor from unlikely events. Man kind is sure to never become soft.
-
Yes, the speed of gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity) is generally assumed to equal the speed of light.
You should also check out Zeno's Paradoxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes). The arrow paradox in particular seems interestingly close to what you're talking about.
Remember that once you get down to the quantum level, there's a great deal of randomness anyway. Meaning that even if you understood every state of every thing in the universe all at once, it would still be impossible to predict the fate of Shrodinger's cat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat). So the future will always have an element of uncertainty. That uncertainty can be understood through statistics, which is really a form of lossy compression.
So yes, if I want to exactly predict the flight of an arrow I would need to know the states of every atom in the universe at a time relative to its distance from the arrow. But in practice I can determine the flight of the arrow well enough to kill a man at 50 paces (I did get my Archery merit badge after all ). This is because I'm not really interested in the exact flight of the arrow, just it's probably path to N degrees of certainty. Thought of this way, we should take heart of this fact. There will always be an element of risk involved in every endeavor from unlikely events. Man kind is sure to never become soft.
You seem to be taking examples as the entire idea, but really they are just part of the concept. Its that everything is infinite. Yes there is uncertainty, and Im not talking about predictions, Im talking about universal summation of all knowledge. And I didn't mean to come to the point that everything is one....
-
If you're not talking about predictions, then your definition of knowledge is too narrow. The only reason we even evolved the ability to store information is to be able to make predictions about the future. There's been a water hole over there since before I was born, so it's probably still there. The only reason to care about the past is that it has a tendency of repeating itself in the future. I do not care about the current state of the electrons in the atoms in my body, let alone their past state. I care about their aggregate, and what that means for my future. Meaning most "knowledge" or information is useless or at the very least easily compressible.
So yes, it is impossible to know all of everything across all time for the simple fact that it probably doesn't compress very well, so you're storage device would be larger than the universe. That's lossless compression though. Just like the WAV format, most of the information stored in the universe is bulky and not of interest. A clever lossy compression algorithm can take our vast universe and maybe compress it down to just the bits that humans care about. An MP3 of our universe. This lossy compression algorithm is what we know of as science.
-
I've already discussed what you just said in previous posts, and I believe the original post explained how compression played into the calculations.. And I have no idea what you're talking about when you mention an MP3 formated Universe.... This rant isn't even on topic anymore, its all about perspective now apparently.... I'm not discussing careing or higher archy of importance and memory storage within humans, and I'm not trying to convence you that you can know anything at all. So because you've ran in circles around nothing, I ask this topic close.
-
Ha! Only I have the power to close topics. And they just never get closed
I did a text search for "compression". I only find things I've said, so you've never responded to the idea that I can see. Maybe you did and I just didn't understand, you sometimes drift into incoherence.
MP3 compresses raw sound files by removing all the frequencies humans can't hear anyway. And then taking what's left over and doing some compressions on it based on the fact that from millisecond to millisecond, the sound probably changes very little. Compare an MP3 and a WAV of the same sound file to see how much that can make a difference. Then listen to the two sound files and compare their audio quality. So when I say MP3 of the universe, I'm suggesting that the uninteresting bits can be removed from our understanding of it, and we're left with an understanding that is much simpler but retains all the important bits.
While I am at it, do you know what I mean when I say a lossy compression algorithm? As compared with a lossless compression algorithm?
So basically your position is that it's impossible to know everything because the universe at time t + 1 contains all the information at time t and lots of new information. And that we can move that +1 all the way down to some infinitesimal value and then we see that the universe contains infinite information. Am I correct in my understanding of what you're saying?
I am saying two points: 1. It's probably not infinite. There is a finite universe lifetime (maybe), and a finite mass/energy value in the universe. There is a huge, but finite, number of configurations that the mass/energy in our universe can do in a finite period of time. There is one exception: perhaps if the universe collapses on itself, in a big crunch, time dilation and heat would allow a period of essentially infinite data production. Maybe. 2. Even if the data in the universe is infinite, from a strictly practical point of view all the information worth knowing can be known. So even if you're right, it's a rather pathological correctness, since it has absolutely no practical relevance.
Oh, and 3. You do not have the mathematical background necessary to really approach your idea scientifically.
-
Ha! Only I have the power to close topics. And they just never get closed
I did a text search for "compression". I only find things I've said, so you've never responded to the idea that I can see. Maybe you did and I just didn't understand, you sometimes drift into incoherence.
MP3 compresses raw sound files by removing all the frequencies humans can't hear anyway. And then taking what's left over and doing some compressions on it based on the fact that from millisecond to millisecond, the sound probably changes very little. Compare an MP3 and a WAV of the same sound file to see how much that can make a difference. Then listen to the two sound files and compare their audio quality. So when I say MP3 of the universe, I'm suggesting that the uninteresting bits can be removed from our understanding of it, and we're left with an understanding that is much simpler but retains all the important bits.
While I am at it, do you know what I mean when I say a lossy compression algorithm? As compared with a lossless compression algorithm?
So basically your position is that it's impossible to know everything because the universe at time t + 1 contains all the information at time t and lots of new information. And that we can move that +1 all the way down to some infinitesimal value and then we see that the universe contains infinite information. Am I correct in my understanding of what you're saying?
I am saying two points: 1. It's probably not infinite. There is a finite universe lifetime (maybe), and a finite mass/energy value in the universe. There is a huge, but finite, number of configurations that the mass/energy in our universe can do in a finite period of time. There is one exception: perhaps if the universe collapses on itself, in a big crunch, time dilation and heat would allow a period of essentially infinite data production. Maybe. 2. Even if the data in the universe is infinite, from a strictly practical point of view all the information worth knowing can be known. So even if you're right, it's a rather pathological correctness, since it has absolutely no practical relevance.
Oh, and 3. You do not have the mathematical background necessary to really approach your idea scientifically.
C = (E^5*D^25)*L where c is a constant for universal translation
* from original post.
Translation and compression are essentially the same idea, translate similar points to one point, thus compressing the infromation. Thats all very nice taht you know everything about MP3 format, but I still I dont know when I said it was impossible to know everything, I might have stated it was impossible to know anything, but for one Im a buddhist so that thinking is not retroactive to my beliefs. Also I cant see why I could take your word as fact since you use Wikipedia as a source and haven't gone away from this topic of MP3 for some reason.
-
You don't think Wikipedia is a reputable source?
I don't think translation and compression are the same idea at all. Especially not with a formula like C = (E^5*D^25)*L.
MP3 is a lossy compression algorithm most people are familiar with. So when I talk about lossy compression, MP3 is a good example. I don't think I'm staying on the topic of MP3 unusually long, or saying MP3 too often, or have MP3 on the brain or anything like that.
...
MP3 MP3 MP3!
-
but I still I dont know when I said it was impossible to know everything,
Hmm, does this ring any bells?
So we can take the total entries in the Encyclopedia Encarta and assume that it contains ALL current and up to date information within its archives. For every entry, there will exsist 5 sets of information to explain the concept fully. For every set, there will be an entirely other set of information to be used in the Dictionary to agian relate the 5 sets to themselves. So what is the total amount of information that can possibly be gained from the universe? Well its quite large, so large in fact, that the Universe itself would fit in it multiple times if it were quantified as volume.
...
To know how much of the total information has been collected (not assuming this information adds to the previous series), we take all the knonw information an individual posses for say 100 people world wide, multiply that by the total population of the earth and divide it by the Total. So while we learn more, the percentage of knonw information grows incredibly slow, while the total number of known things grows exponentialy.
Sure sounds like you're saying it's impossible to me.
...
MP3!
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA) the 10th dimension part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBaYMESb8o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBaYMESb8o) part 2
theres your MP3....
-
?
-
Videos can't be in MP3 format, but thanks for link. Interesting stuff.
-
Videos can't be in MP3 format, but thanks for link. Interesting stuff.
I ment MP3 as in information wise, the 10th dimensions according to that very abstract way of thinking is all information the universe could ever have.
-
Well, when the guy in the movie explained time as a straight line and said it was the 4th dimension I was thinking it could as well be the first dimension. Personally I doubt time exists. It's just because we have memories and the ability to think ahead we think of time. I also doubt the big bang theory. Universe may as well be eternal.
-
The links you posted talk about other universes, so it in fact is talking about more information than our universe could ever have by definition. When I say "all information", I specifically am limiting it to information in this universe.
The video links are interesting, but you should be careful assuming that it's talking about the same thing that string theory's 10 (11? 12? They keep needing more) dimensions are talking about. Those dimensions are compacted (http://universeadventure.org/final_frontier/string-compacted.htm), which is a fancy way of saying microscopic essentially. They aren't the same thing as the other worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
When talking about dimensions in general, there isn't such thing as the first, fourth, or tenth dimension. Dimension simply means something you can measure with a scalar (ie: number). For instance, when building the physics for DB3 I had 10 dimensions: position (x, y), velocity (x', y'), acceleration (x', y'), angle (theta), angular velocity (omega), angular acceleration (alpha), epoch start time(t0), and epoch end time(t1). For string theory, when someone says 10 dimensions they almost certainly specifically mean 10 spatial dimensions, meaning there are 10 different directions you can move in which are independent of one another.
-
The links you posted talk about other universes, so it in fact is talking about more information than our universe could ever have by definition. When I say "all information", I specifically am limiting it to information in this universe.
The video links are interesting, but you should be careful assuming that it's talking about the same thing that string theory's 10 (11? 12? They keep needing more) dimensions are talking about. Those dimensions are compacted (http://universeadventure.org/final_frontier/string-compacted.htm), which is a fancy way of saying microscopic essentially. They aren't the same thing as the other worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
When talking about dimensions in general, there isn't such thing as the first, fourth, or tenth dimension. Dimension simply means something you can measure with a scalar (ie: number). For instance, when building the physics for DB3 I had 10 dimensions: position (x, y), velocity (x', y'), acceleration (x', y'), angle (theta), angular velocity (omega), angular acceleration (alpha), epoch start time(t0), and epoch end time(t1). For string theory, when someone says 10 dimensions they almost certainly specifically mean 10 spatial dimensions, meaning there are 10 different directions you can move in which are independent of one another.
yeah I didnt think it helped my situation, but it was interesting. But I think it was full of turd jam to be honest. I dont see how I can draw imaginary lines and call them real dimensions.
-
yeah I didnt think it helped my situation, but it was interesting. But I think it was full of turd jam to be honest. I dont see how I can draw imaginary lines and call them real dimensions.
Well actually you can. That's what I was trying to say in my last post. Dimension is just a word that means something you can measure that is orthogonal to whatever other dimensions you've defined. Meaning if I have two dimensions: x, y, I can change x without necessarily changing y. So distance and time work, but distance measured in meters and distance measured in feet don't, since if I change my distance in meters I have to change my distance in feet as well, so they aren't orthogonal.
Spatial dimensions is different, and is what most people mean when they say dimensions. Spatial dimensions have special properties which are defined by topology, a unit of mathematics that studies abstract geometry (very abstract).
So that youtube video is technically correct in that you can construct 10 dimensions exactly as it indicates you can. Whether those dimensions correspond to reality or not is another question. I think most of them at least could be considered spatial dimensions as well, but I can't say for certain when he goes to his higher dimensions. I think it was trying to hint that these were the 10 dimensions of string theory, which is patently incorrect. But since it never really said it (I admit I mostly browsed it, so maybe it did?) I won't fault it for that.
-
yeah I didnt think it helped my situation, but it was interesting. But I think it was full of turd jam to be honest. I dont see how I can draw imaginary lines and call them real dimensions.
Well actually you can. That's what I was trying to say in my last post. Dimension is just a word that means something you can measure that is orthogonal to whatever other dimensions you've defined. Meaning if I have two dimensions: x, y, I can change x without necessarily changing y. So distance and time work, but distance measured in meters and distance measured in feet don't, since if I change my distance in meters I have to change my distance in feet as well, so they aren't orthogonal.
Spatial dimensions is different, and is what most people mean when they say dimensions. Spatial dimensions have special properties which are defined by topology, a unit of mathematics that studies abstract geometry (very abstract).
So that youtube video is technically correct in that you can construct 10 dimensions exactly as it indicates you can. Whether those dimensions correspond to reality or not is another question. I think most of them at least could be considered spatial dimensions as well, but I can't say for certain when he goes to his higher dimensions. I think it was trying to hint that these were the 10 dimensions of string theory, which is patently incorrect. But since it never really said it (I admit I mostly browsed it, so maybe it did?) I won't fault it for that.
Well it gave me headache when they tried to explin all the 3rd dimension were two collapsed points.
-
He had to do that because otherwise he couldn't draw all of his dimensions on a 2D video. The way he did it isn't quite right, it should collapse a square to a line, instead of a line to a point, since a point is not a 1 dimensional object but a 0 dimensional object...
-
Dimensions in physics are almost certainly vector space dimensions, rather than topology dimensions. Topology is just wierd (but in a good way). Calling topology geometry seems a bit of a stretch.
-
Ultimately that's what topology is, though. It's geometry, but abstracted away from reality to just its core. That's where the terms like "ball" come from.
-
So far, there has been much more mention of balls in real analysis than topology. In general, I don't think it makes sense to apply the word geometry to something without a notion of distance.
-
It doesn't talk about distance directly, but abstracts the concept into a general function relating two elements in a set called a metric. See metric @ wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_(mathematics)).
-
A topological space may not be (and very often isnt) a metric space. That is, there is no metric that can be used to generate the topology. Metrics are another thing that real analysis has talked a lot about and topology has mentioned not at all.
-
A metric space is a topological space (though the reverse isn't necessarily true). I learned about metrics and metric spaces in my topology class. Though to be fair I never finished the real analysis class, and didn't do particularly well in my topology class either. But it sounds like we disagree more just on how the definition is used than anything substantial. In this post when I talked about topology I meant specifically the branch of topology that deals with euclidean spaces and related non flat metric spaces that can be used to describe possible space times.
BTW, if you know enough to argue with me... were you a Math major? I can't imagine any other reason anyone would ever learn or care about real analysis or topology.
-
I'm currently in my first year of grad school in math. When I mentioned what real analysis and topology talked about, I was using the terms as names of classes rather than names of mathematical fields. I don't disagree with how you used metric, but I don't think calling topology a type of geometry fits because metric spaces are only a part of it. Although I'm fine with calling abstract geometry a type of topology :-P
-
I liked math up until I got into real analysis and topology and abstract algebra. Calculus, linear algebra, differential equations, and numerical analysis were ether things I could visualize or memorize algorithms for. They made a certain amount of quirky sense and built on things I'd learned before, so it was fun and reasonable. I hated proofs but they were only like 25-30% of the material. Then when I got to the last 4 or so classes to finish the major they totally change gears. You start almost completely from scratch (not really building on previous knowledge. In fact, previous knowledge can handicap you since it can lead to faulty reasoning). And it's 100% proofs! Yech! If I had understood that up front I'd probably have aimed for applied math. All it would have taken is an advisor telling me "see, these last four classes here? All you do is proofs." sometime in my freshman or sophomore years.
-
Heh. Seeing a little bit of abstract algebra in high school is was prompted me to major in math. I specifically picked classes at the beginning just to meet the prereqs for abstract algebra and then number theory as soon as possible. Proofs are interesting because you generally aren't given the answer before you're given the problem. Too many people in too many fields give away the answers to good problems. In many areas (but math especially) a reliance on being given answers is a bad thing.
-
Actually abstract algebra was my favorite of the late level courses. It was just as abstract as everything else, but we started slow enough that I could brute force memorize things (abelian and groups and things), which I guess is the only way to learn that sort of material. Plus, with abstract algebra at least, I could see some real world uses. You can do rotations on a cube and understand that there are really only n transformations. Mostly I was just irked that I'd spent like 15 years of my life learning what I thought was math, only to be told that at best what I knew would be a hindrance. I hate memorizing things (I failed a lot of spelling tests in school because I felt like memorizing the spellings would be cheating), and that's really what you have to do when you deal with that stuff.
For instance, in AP physics I had to memorize very little. Most equations are just transformations of other equations, so if you understand the basic principles and a memorize a few key equations (or put them in your graphic calculator's memory (I don't consider this cheating, my calculator is my brain's external hard drive )), you can derive anything you need during the test. I think during one quiz on relativity I managed to derive E = m c^2 (though I think the question was on time dilation so this wasn't all that useful). But there's no deriving what an group means exactly. You can understand the identity principle, understand the idea of an operation, of inverses, of associativity, and yet be no closer to understanding how to answer a test question: "prove that natural numbers under addition form a group". It's just vocab word after vocab word. Physics was like that, too, but I had an easier time of that for some reason.
You could probably teach abstract algebra in elementary or middle school. There really isn't a lot of prereq knowledge required, beyond the ability to understand how proofs work. And there's nothing inherently difficult about the material beyond memorization, which is what kids that age do for school anyway. You could have applied math, which leads to calculus and engineering, and pure mathematics, which deals with proofs. Geometry like it's taught in early highschool would probably be a good intro course for pure math, since that's essentially what it is right now anyway. I would have received it a lot better if I was 10 years younger and it wasn't the last few classes before graduation.
-
I guess you didn't have a good teacher for that stuff, then. It's possible to do quite a bit without using fancy words. In one of my undergrad classes our professor intentionally didn't tell us what most of the things were in order not to distract people from the important things. Eg: "Show that if a1, a2, a3, ... is a number sequence such that for any positive number c there is a natural number N such that if n and m are greater than N, then |an - am| < c, then a1, a2, a3, ... converges." was one of the problems, but in that class we never used the term cauchy sequence. Avoiding new words does tend to make things a big longer, though.
I'm sorry your classes were focused on memorization. That is not a good way to learn the material.
-
Good teachers can help a lot. Especially in math. This reminds me of a math teacher that, well tried to explain differential equations
He just ignored any questions with, you're supposed to know that or that's not important. He didn't really explain anything but just start writing the whole calculation down. And often it came to mind with him, that he made another mistake, wipes a part away. And starts doing something else he hopes that works. , strange experience that was.
He didn't did it every class that extreme, but it was sure he wasn't a good math-teacher. I'm not sure anyway how he did exactly maybe he did improve. I skipped those classes after a while.
Fact was that most failed math that specific semester, I was then one of the lucky ones that passed it.
That wasn't becouse it was all hard, the classes (math) from him really was confusing.
-
I guess you didn't have a good teacher for that stuff, then. It's possible to do quite a bit without using fancy words. In one of my undergrad classes our professor intentionally didn't tell us what most of the things were in order not to distract people from the important things. Eg: "Show that if a1, a2, a3, ... is a number sequence such that for any positive number c there is a natural number N such that if n and m are greater than N, then |an - am| < c, then a1, a2, a3, ... converges." was one of the problems, but in that class we never used the term cauchy sequence. Avoiding new words does tend to make things a big longer, though.
I'm sorry your classes were focused on memorization. That is not a good way to learn the material.
It would have helped, but even explained out in words makes it hard to understand. It's like having the Pythagoras theorem explained as "In any right triangle, the area of the square whose side is the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares whose sides are the two legs". You can't just gloss over a sentence like that and understand what it means. You need pictures and notation.
Good teachers can help a lot. Especially in math. This reminds me of a math teacher that, well tried to explain differential equations
He just ignored any questions with, you're supposed to know that or that's not important. He didn't really explain anything but just start writing the whole calculation down. And often it came to mind with him, that he made another mistake, wipes a part away. And starts doing something else he hopes that works. , strange experience that was.
He didn't did it every class that extreme, but it was sure he wasn't a good math-teacher. I'm not sure anyway how he did exactly maybe he did improve. I skipped those classes after a while.
Fact was that most failed math that specific semester, I was then one of the lucky ones that passed it.
That wasn't becouse it was all hard, the classes (math) from him really was confusing.
I had a teacher like that for a discrete math class in computer science. I knew most of the material already, but the way he explained things, it sure didn't feel like it
-
But once you grasp what something means when decompressed from the notation, you can understand any mathematical statement.
-
Yeah, most math things are actually pretty easy to understand. The hard part is just presenting the idea in a way that someone can understand it. Pure math hasn't quite gotten as far as basic arithmetic in this regard. English (any human language for that matter) is an ill fit for mathematical ideas, because it's not always clear what's a loaded word (group and set in a mathematic sense mean something very different from English, where they really mean the same thing), and what's just filler to make it grammatically correct. Presenting ideas in a way that's easy to understand isn't easy, of course. I'm not faulting anyone for the current state of affairs.
It's like word problems. I hated word problems in Elementary school because they had to use loaded words for operations. "difference" meant subtraction, "and" means addition, unless you're talking about some other field of math like sets (where it means intersection, which is counter intuitive because addition is a constructive process that makes something bigger, and intersection is a destructive process that makes it smaller <-- an insight in to how my mind works).
I don't have a better solution, though. The set building notation isn't all that much better than raw English, for instance. Upside down A's and backwards E's are just as confusing. It's taken calculus hundreds of years to be as digestible as it is (and it still has a ways to go, I think). So hopefully in hundreds of years they'll figure out better ways of presenting the material that isn't so obtuse.