Return to Unfiction unforum
 a.r.g.b.b 
FAQ FAQ   Search Search 
 
Welcome!
New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.
Website Restoration Project
This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.
Announcements
This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.
This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.
 
The time now is Sun Nov 17, 2024 12:03 am
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)
View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum
Calendar
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: Perplex City » PXC: Project Syzygy Pre-Game
[LOCKED] [PUZZLE?] E Numbers
View previous topicView next topic
Page 5 of 15 [225 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ..., 13, 14, 15  Next
Author Message
Shish
Boot


Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 51

tanner wrote:
Quote:
If you could make guarantees about the contents of the number, then by defenition it isn't random.


err sorry wrong

unless a study of number theory is undertaken by those unconvinced then i shall not elaborate.


refusing to elaborate doesn't make a very good argument <_<

so how *do* you prove that an infinite random number contains a finite given number, short of looking for it?


As to a point, which of the following are agreeable to?

o) take an infinite number of RNGs, filter out those who don't produce a 1 on the first go. Repeat, filtering out those who don't produce a 1 as the second number. Carry on repeating, and you'll end up with a randomly generated number made of all ones.

The tail thing would agree, in that there is always in isolation a 1/10 chance of the next number being a one (and overall a 1/10^n chance*), and seeing as there is a chance, given an infinite number of tries it is certain to eventually happen.

* on the assumption that 0.999 = 1 -- where n is inf, 1/10^n = 0, so the chance of any given random infinite number appearing is 0. But given infinite attempts you end up with inf/10^inf...

o) for any RNG, the chance of it generating a given number is 1/10, the chance of it generating two given numbers in sequence is 1/100, generally being 1/10^n where n is the length of the string being searched for. However, given infinite attempts the chance of finding the number then becomes inf/10^n


So who wins out of:
There exists a sequence made of all ones (which logically cannot contain all possible number sequences): odds inf/10^inf
All infinte random numbers contain all finite random numbers: odds inf/10^n (where n is the length of the finite string)

ED> Or, as I've been saying; such a battle can never exist, and debate as to it's outcome is as useful as the infinite force vs infinite wall.
_________________
#syzygy stats + searchable logs

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 1:46 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
SilentAvenger
Boot

Joined: 23 Oct 2004
Posts: 44

Quote:
all finite seqences will appear somewhere in e --- but infinite seqences are more problematic --- one could ask (a very interesting question), does e exist within e?


e is defined as apyriodic. Therefore, e cannot appear within e, because that way I can turn e into a fraction:

say at point N within e, e repeats:

define K as the number e, taken out to N digits. (finite number of digits)

x = e
x * 10^N = k + e / 10
x * 10^(N+1) = k + e
x * 10(N+1) - x = K + e - e = K

x * (10^(N+1) - 1) = K

K / (10^(N+1) -1) = x = e

K is rational: a number with a finite number of digits.
10^(N+1) - 1 is rational (its basically 9 N+1 times in a row)

Therefore, I just defined e as a rational number, which we know is wrong. Smile

Now, about other strings of infinite digits, we cannot have strings of infinite digits which repeat, as the proof above is easily converted to deal with that.

The only option left is another irrational within e, and I'm too tired to think of that now. You think of it Razz

EDIT: added the quote

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:19 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
tanner
Entrenched


Joined: 21 May 2003
Posts: 875
Location: (x,y,z,t,i, ...)+

l





to shish
l
ike i said if you wanna know you gotta learn maths(number theory) -- if you want to learn, then great thinkers have trod those paths before, worth reading -- you have already made your opinions clear on this thread and i would suggest that, for you, this thread may be worth avoiding in future.if it upsets you

love to all

.
however i will agree that this thread maybe should be on another forum Smile -- however what the hell else we got too do?/
_________________
tanner³ -- Join the PXC team on SETI@home
"And the princess and the prince discuss what's real and what is not,
But it doesn't matter inside the Gates of Eden" - BD


PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:23 pm
 View user's profile Yahoo Messenger
 Back to top 
tanner
Entrenched


Joined: 21 May 2003
Posts: 875
Location: (x,y,z,t,i, ...)+

Quote:
e is defined as apyriodic. Therefore, e cannot appear within e, because that way I can turn e into a fraction:


this is what makes it interesting --- infinity (aleph null) is BIG -- it can contain an infinate subset of itself

not only that, but it can contain an infinite number of subsets of itself and still remain aperiodic

------------------------------------------------------------------
edit -- the above is of course RUBBISH -- id forgotten we were discussing e and not the size of the set of integers -- sorry bout that -- thanks to avenger for the correction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
and that is only aleph null --- the smallest kind of infininity -- just take a look at C (maybe aleph one) "the continuum" --- it just gets bigger and bigger

dont trust intuition

.
_________________
tanner³ -- Join the PXC team on SETI@home
"And the princess and the prince discuss what's real and what is not,
But it doesn't matter inside the Gates of Eden" - BD


PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:33 pm
Last edited by tanner on Sat Dec 25, 2004 6:19 am; edited 3 times in total
 View user's profile Yahoo Messenger
 Back to top 
Shish
Boot


Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 51

[quote="tanner"]like i said if you wanna know you gotta learn maths(number theory)[quote]

Any specific pointers? I have yet to be told which bits of the above post are wrong, which makes correcting it hard :?

And even if I'm incapable of understanding, you can still put a tick or a cross next to the points I was questioning, with an explanation or a pointer to one...


Quote:
you have already made your opinions clear


My opinions are based on the facts as I see them, no emotional attachment - I'd be quite happy to change them if stronger facts are presented


Quote:
i would suggest that, for you, this thread may be worth avoiding in future.


On the contrary, it's been quite the enjoyable mental workout :)


Quote:
if it upsets you


I've been on the net for quite some time, a thick skin comes from it - and won enough such arguments it's only fair I lose some (although your refusal to elaborate hardly counts as a win...)


A further note on personality: I'm an engineer by nature, I prefer things which can be shown to work than pure theory - I take part in debates such as this as pleasurable excercise, not with the aim of finding definite answers :)
_________________
#syzygy stats + searchable logs

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:47 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
Olorin
Unfettered

Joined: 04 Nov 2004
Posts: 613
Location: Gainesville, FL

At this point I wonder:
In an infinite and random thread, like this, could you find any random post, like this one?

F.O.R.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:59 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
tanner
Entrenched


Joined: 21 May 2003
Posts: 875
Location: (x,y,z,t,i, ...)+

ok shish -- im not sure where you should start --- as i do not know you --- but its a big and beautiful subject --- so maybe formal logic would be a start

as for engineering --- i am an electronics engineer by profession but i prefer (in my spare time) number theory, poker and beer

Smile enjoy
_________________
tanner³ -- Join the PXC team on SETI@home
"And the princess and the prince discuss what's real and what is not,
But it doesn't matter inside the Gates of Eden" - BD


PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:01 pm
 View user's profile Yahoo Messenger
 Back to top 
Shish
Boot


Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 51

Olorin wrote:
At this point I wonder:
In an infinite and random thread, like this, could you find any random post, like this one?

F.O.R.


yes, that's what it's there for :D


An ammendum to the post above: I don't have anything against pure theory, but in a battle of theory vs practice I take practice's side. In this specific case, I have yet to see an infinite random number in real life (If anyone feels like posting one as a demonstration, go ahead... :)
_________________
#syzygy stats + searchable logs

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:01 pm
Last edited by Shish on Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
SilentAvenger
Boot

Joined: 23 Oct 2004
Posts: 44

When refering to a random sequence/infinite number in this post, I mean a COMPLETELY random sequence, as in, one about which NO predictions can be made.

Quote:
so how *do* you prove that an infinite random number contains a finite given number, short of looking for it?


For my hand's sake, I = infinity;
Simple:
Assuming the random stream of numbers E (Razz not the real e, just for fun) is of infinite length, and there is a string S of finite length N, the chance of S appearing in the beginning of E is 1/10^N. In E there are I substrings of length N, therefore, in each one, there is a I/10^N chance of the substring being S. Now, because 10^N is a finite number, it pales in the face of I, and runs away (well, not really, but I think of it this way. In math terms, as lim x->I, any number which does not ->I becomes so small in comparison that it does not have to be considered. Its different if you have more than one numbers ->I), so we are left with I - Infinity.

Hehe, if you call that simple.

Quote:
As to a point, which of the following are agreeable to?

o) take an infinite number of RNGs, filter out those who don't produce a 1 on the first go. Repeat, filtering out those who don't produce a 1 as the second number. Carry on repeating, and you'll end up with a randomly generated number made of all ones.


That would make it non-random. You are filtering stuff out in a limiting (as in, you leave no randomness) non-random way, making the resulting string NOT a randomly generated number.

Quote:
The tail thing would agree, in that there is always in isolation a 1/10 chance of the next number being a one (and overall a 1/10^n chance*), and seeing as there is a chance, given an infinite number of tries it is certain to eventually happen.

* on the assumption that 0.999 = 1 -- where n is inf, 1/10^n = 0, so the chance of any given random infinite number appearing is 0. But given infinite attempts you end up with inf/10^inf...


Its not an assumption! I proved it!

Yea, the tail thing agrees Smile Anyways, yes, it would seem to be inf/10^inf, but you need to remember that any repeating infintie number CANNOT appear in a randomly generated stream, now, and you seem to have dragged me into it again, is finding an non-repeating infinite number within another non-repeating infinite number.

First of all, there are an infinite number of infinite numbers within an infinite number (bleh, that was hard to write), because you can dock off the top digit each time, and you get a new number. Now, wether this will contain ALL the numbers (except itself and repetitive ones) is a different story alogether, I'll have to ask some of the number-theory nuts @ my school.

Quote:
o) for any RNG, the chance of it generating a given number is 1/10, the chance of it generating two given numbers in sequence is 1/100, generally being 1/10^n where n is the length of the string being searched for. However, given infinite attempts the chance of finding the number then becomes inf/10^n


We have already established this many times. Even in this post alone Razz

Quote:
So who wins out of:
There exists a sequence made of all ones (which logically cannot contain all possible number sequences): odds inf/10^inf
All infinte random numbers contain all finite random numbers: odds inf/10^n (where n is the length of the finite string)


Well, 10^inf is inf of a higher degree than normal inf, therefore inf/10^inf is inf, but I'm not sure as to if this is the correct calculation to make in this case. And about the all ones, I think my proof in a previous post can explain why it really CANT happen.

Quote:
Quote:
e is defined as apyriodic. Therefore, e cannot appear within e, because that way I can turn e into a fraction:


this is what makes it interesting --- infinity (aleph null) is BIG -- it can contain an infinate subset of itself

not only that, but it can contain an infinite number of subsets of itself and still remain aperiodic

and that is only aleph null --- the smallest kind of infininity -- just take a look at C (maybe aleph one) "the continuum" --- it just gets bigger and bigger

dont trust intuition

.


In order to say that, you need to disprove my proof. I ask you to, and not answer with mysterious generic answers.

About Contiuum, Yes, I know of it, but what does that have to do with anything? Want something big? Try Transfinity Razz

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:03 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Shish
Boot


Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 51

SilentAvenger wrote:
*** explanation ***


thanks :)


Quote:
For my hand's sake, I = infinity......


Which was the same proof as I gave, I just though that I later counterproved it, which was confusing :?


>> take infinite RNGs, filter them
> That would make it non-random.

surely to say one specific string can't be randomly generated would imply that *any* specific string can't be randomly generated? With the random string being infinite and non-repeating*, it's thus impossible to specify using a finite string?

* so all infinite random strings are non-repeating?

ED> Must it also be patternless, if such a thing is definable? 12112111211112 etc is non-repeating, and can be taken to infinite length, yet won't contain all numbers... would the "the chance of that pattern happening is effectively 0" rule be the thing to stop it?


> Well, 10^inf is inf of a higher degree than normal inf

such were my thoughs - can I/10^I vs I/10^n be cancelled down to inf vs n? Or are there special rules for cancelling I ouf of equasions, as there are for 0?


> the smallest kind of infininity

*** DUMMY MODE: ON ***


> Try Transfinity :P

Now you're just making stuff up <_< ... >_>


(I would have a joking smiley by that last one, but I can't think of one... and shorthand like "j/k" annoys me...)
_________________
#syzygy stats + searchable logs

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:26 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
thebruce
Dances With Wikis


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

SilentAvenger wrote:
The only option left is another irrational within e, and I'm too tired to think of that now. You think of it Razz


well, I'd say there's an infinite number of irrational numbers within e... if e is infinite, then one rational number sequence starts from e's 2nd digit, and goes on to infinity... another sequence starts from e's 3rd digit, and goes on to infinity... and another, and another, on and on, for the entire length of e which is infinity... so there's an infinite number of irrational numbers in e Razz

hehe

Quote:
Quote:
o) take an infinite number of RNGs, filter out those who don't produce a 1 on the first go. Repeat, filtering out those who don't produce a 1 as the second number. Carry on repeating, and you'll end up with a randomly generated number made of all ones.
That would make it non-random. You are filtering stuff out in a limiting (as in, you leave no randomness) non-random way, making the resulting string NOT a randomly generated number.

I didn't like the first explanation anyway... without 'limiting' the number selection in a random number, given each digit has a 1 in 10 chance of being a 1 (assuming the standard 0-9), then there is still a chance, as small as it may be, that at any point in the infinite random number, all numbers previous to that position were 1. So there is a chance that an infinite random number can consist of solely 1's... it's an infinitely small chance Smile

Quote:
First of all, there are an infinite number of infinite numbers within an infinite number (bleh, that was hard to write)

haha just read that now Smile you explained it from the other direction than what I said above... kule
_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com


PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:49 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
SilentAvenger
Boot

Joined: 23 Oct 2004
Posts: 44

Yea, we have done this proof ALOT of times in this thread. From now on I will just go LATPWHDMTA (Look At The Proof We Have Done Many Time Above), or RTFP (Read The F(G-rated-censor)ing proof).

And no, no truly random infinite stream can be repeating, as from the point it starts repeating it stops being random.

Random means you cannot say for every number, what the next number will be. You CAN say what it WONT be. You can say, that each 1 has a 2 after it, and you have no number other than 1 and 2, but you can still have infinite random strings, basically, a long stream of 2's, with 1's strewn in at random intervals.

And you cant generate a specific string randomly. Cause in a specific string, you can say what the next number will be for each number, or, using series terminology, you can provide a function for each a(n), given a(n-1)...a(1) and n, to calculate a(n), which defies the definition of random.

About infinity in calculations, the thing you need to think of is this, say instead of I you put in a REALLY big number. Anything that becomes insignificant compared to the biggest one can be assumed to be 0. Now, make it even bigger, etc., until you think it cant get any bigger, and you're done. Basically, do lim I -> infinity.


About kinds of infinity:

Think of all the integers.
Now think of all the Real numbers.

Integers = alpha-null.

Now, consider all the subgroups within alpha-null.
Given a subgroup S and a number N, N could either be in (1) subgroup S, or not in (0) subgroup N.

Therefore, there is 2^alpha-null subgroups of Integers.

Now, consider all the subgroups within the group of subgroups of integers....
2^(2^alpha-null) etc.

Now, assume we do this lim -> Infinity, we end up with aleph-infinity, or aleph-aleph-null, transfinity, and we can have aleph-2^(aleph-null).

*Watches heads explode* Twisted Evil

thebruce, the problem is that you cannot completely generate a full infinite random stream, therefore you can never know if its 1's that go on forever. The chance of an infinite generated stream S being the 1's string is 1/inf. Consider the meaning of that as you will.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:49 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Rei
Boot

Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 43
Location: spoo-kehhh

tanner wrote:
"First get your facts; then you can distort them at your leisure." -Mark Twain


Sorry, couldnt resist!
_________________
Applying my non linear logic to everything!

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:18 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
firefox
Unfettered

Joined: 28 Jul 2004
Posts: 333

so the monkeys did get there first. hmm go figure Rolling Eyes

now that you've warmed up those big juicy brains of yours, how about running over to the postcard thread and solving that number Laughing

or we could discussing time travel? or the possibily of creating a self sustaining wormhole to travel between parallel space continuums, which feeds off the natural chaos or black (dark even Razz) matter present around us in the univers..... Cool

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:29 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Shish
Boot


Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 51

firefox wrote:
now that you've warmed up those big juicy brains


Goddamnit, now I'm hungry :P


As to science, most of the ideas you suggest have been repeatedly gone over in megatokyo's science forum, another place I frequent. Note that while many of the people there are simply moronic, there are quite a few people who actually understand such things :)

Most of the people who are smart and none of the people who are morons ended up going to scienceordie.org, but SoD's admin can never seem to decide on things so it keeps dying for a few months and coming back for a week with a great new look, and then dying for another few months :( if you can catch it while it's online, it's a lovely discussion forum, with a nicely enforced "no stupid" rule :)
_________________
#syzygy stats + searchable logs

PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:02 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 5 of 15 [225 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ..., 13, 14, 15  Next
View previous topicView next topic
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: Perplex City » PXC: Project Syzygy Pre-Game
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group