A Search Algorithm, And A Prize

_{Gil Dodgen

March 18, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

There has been some discussion at UD about computational search algorithms, which is one of my specialties.

Just for fun, I’ve included some C source code here (as a .txt file), which is part of a research project. I’ll send a free set of my classical piano albums to the first person who runs the code and publishes the program output in the comments below, along with a correct guess as to what the ultimate purpose of the search algorithm is.

Please provide the following information: CPU clock speed and compiler used.

EIL members are not eligible.

Comments

Sal: "Unlike the IDists here, I actually work with Dembski’s latest definition, not an amorphous feeling of “what CSI means to me.” I think you know even too well that many of us actually work with a very clear and detailed definition of FSCI which, while being a little different from Dembski's latest, is perfectly appliable to biology, and is as distant as possible from "an amorphous feeling of “what CSI means to me.”"gpuccio_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT}

LOL, David. I don't know if a little gal like me can compete with the big boys. ROTFLOL, R0b. "Sal Gal" is the nickname of my favorite niece. You're funny too, Upright BiPed. I sound just like the guy who invoked Rice's theorem in arguing that the CSI of the function of a program is incomputable. Google, and ye shall find. Unlike the IDists here, I actually work with Dembski's latest definition, not an amorphous feeling of "what CSI means to me."Sal Gal_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

Gil:
Sorry Sal, but trying to explain computational number theory to you would be as futile as trying to explain calculus to someone who can’t add fractions.
Go easy on him, Gil. We can't all be computer/math experts and Evo Info Lab associates.R0b_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT}

trousers.David Kellogg_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

What is trou? I'm not familiar with this word.GilDodgen_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

Gil, "pissing" followed by "Send me some code. I’ve sent you mine"? Really? Are we dropping trou here? Or do such double entendres arrive naturally? No need to compare code. I'm pretty sure yours is shorter.David Kellogg_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

Gal and Kellogg, Pardon my French, but you guys are just pissing in the wind. Send me some code. I've sent you mine. We'll compare notes.GilDodgen_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

tribune7 [30],
Sal Gal –On most days, in most places, you can look into the sky and match many patterns. And how specific would they be? Is that a bunny or a giraffe? And regardless none of them would have a complexity anywhere near as high as Gil’s program.
Sal Gal's point, I believe, is that Hamlet and Polonius are engaging in a bit of design detection. They are imaginatively supplying designs that are not there -- like, Sal Gal suggests, IDers in general. See the text here and search for "weasel."David Kellogg_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

Sal Gal: Why not exhibit the grace to ask for clarification of what you do not understand? Sorry Sal, but trying to explain computational number theory to you would be as futile as trying to explain calculus to someone who can't add fractions.GilDodgen_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

Sal and all: I don't know if an ET would recognize Gil's program as a program ig he found it etched in stone. Maybe yes, maybe not. That's not the point. The point is the "we" can recognize it as a program, because we have enough information about the context. And, in the biological world, the context is that we have programs running under our eyes. Why shouldn't an ET recognize that an enzyme is performing its function? Or that the flagellum proteins are deviced to provide motion? In the same way, if an ET could observe Gil's program running on a computer, and the outputs of his program in use in the right context, do you really think that they could not infer design? So, I do not just "marvel at your sophistry". You know I admire it. But still sophistry it is.gpuccio_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

Has anyone ever noticed that Sal sounds just like Ray?Upright BiPed_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

"Explain precisely how an extraterrestrial visitor, finding your source code etched in a stone on the summit of Mount Improbable, would assign high specified complexity to it." They will probably use a similar, highly accurate and much more sophisticated type of design detection method, similar to ID's. Explain how we would not assign CSI if we found a type of code unknown to us and unknown to what known natural phenomena can generate. If a code has known origins then design becomes obvious. If it doesn't then we apply the method. Its a useful tool, one which resident Darwinians apparently still have a difficult time understanding.ab_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

Sal Gal --On most days, in most places, you can look into the sky and match many patterns. And how specific would they be? Is that a bunny or a giraffe? And regardless none of them would have a complexity anywhere near as high as Gil's program.tribune7_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

All I can do is marvel at your sophistry.
Why not exhibit the grace to ask for clarification of what you do not understand?Sal Gal_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

tribune7 (23): The program makes a pretty picture. What of it? The probability of looking around and seeing a pretty picture is high. Something funny about the ID obsession with the Weasel program is the oblivion to the context in which Hamlet says, "Methinks it is like a weasel." On most days, in most places, you can look into the sky and match many patterns.Sal Gal_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

Sal Gal, All I can do is marvel at your sophistry.GilDodgen_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

The same is true of stone polygons on the tundra (or Mars). And would the probability of those stone polygons appearing on tundra be akin to that of Gil's program being etched in stone?tribune7_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

Tribune7
The design is pretty evident. There is a pattern (brackets appearing at intervals, repeating symbols etc.) showing specificity, and the probability of them appearing by chance are exceedingly low.
The same is true of stone polygons on the tundra (or Mars).Richard Simons_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

Check out DNA, mRNA, ribosomes, and protein synthesis. If the correspondence isn’t obvious, I can’t help you.
The correspondence is not at all obvious. I can only guess that you cling to the outdated metaphor of the genetic program. "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Hacking is not going to establish anything in ID. If you want to model certain biological processes as computation, you had best learn the fundamental results in the theory of computation.Sal Gal_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

Sal Gal -- Explain precisely how an extraterrestrial visitor, finding your source code etched in a stone on the summit of Mount Improbable, would assign high specified complexity to it. The design is pretty evident. There is a pattern (brackets appearing at intervals, repeating symbols etc.) showing specificity, and the probability of them appearing by chance are exceedingly low. Granted, it may not be so easy to determine that it was a computer program.tribune7_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

Gil, Explain precisely how an extraterrestrial visitor, finding your source code etched in a stone on the summit of Mount Improbable, would assign high specified complexity to it. Better yet, give a mathematical definition of specified complexity that does not posit a pattern-recognizing entity that is itself of high specified complexity (the extraterrestrial visitor is an instance of Dembki's semiotic agent). There is no way to infer that a text is a program, let alone a unique machine for which the text is a program. (For every text and every Turing-computable function, there is some universal Turing machine that, on input of the text as a program, computes the function.) And even if you are given a machine and a program, there is, under the Turing-Church thesis, and by Rice's theorem, no algorithm to decide any nontrivial property of the function computed by the program. The upshot is that E.T. can say absolutely nothing about the purpose or function of your program. A string in the C language is no more revealing than a unary Turing machine description (e.g., a string of n dots indicating that a universal Turing machine should simulate the n-th machine in some recursive enumeration of Turing machines). Any analysis is limited to the text itself. ("Gee, Oolon, look at all them dots lined up in a row. What would do that?") There are several fundamental reasons you are marveling over your program. First, you believe that you are a marvel. Second, you believe that the things you do are marvels in and of themselves. Third, you believe that anything as marvelous as you would marvel at what you do. Your program has neither intrinsic meaning nor intrinsic purpose. Only by telling us a great deal in a shared language about what you do with the program can you make it into something marvelous. Chimpanzees in the wild break twigs from trees, and then strip away the leaves. They push the stripped twigs into termite mounds, and pull them out slowly to catch termites to eat. For a fact, E.T. will not know that your program is a tool until he sees you use it. Beyond that, it is possible that E.T. will be only slightly more impressed with your program than with a stripped twig.Sal Gal_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

GSV: Can you expand on the implications please? It isn’t obvious to me! Check out DNA, mRNA, ribosomes, and protein synthesis. If the correspondence isn't obvious, I can't help you.GilDodgen_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

tsmith you should move to C# or F# My dear fellow, I did this at a very early age. My classical piano repertoire includes many works in both C# and F#, by many great composers, and in both major and minor keys.GilDodgen_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

Arthur Smith: "Hey Mr Jass, Gil may not be the brightest bulb when it comes to ID theory" May I dissent? I really think he is one of the brightest bulbs here! Very good post, Gil, and very good discussion. You #9 is exemplary.gpuccio_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Gil, my bad. It was a debug build, the environment's default configuration. Here's the release output, which better matches your expectation... --------------------- factoring 523979429835916961 nodes searched = 472, with 30 cutoffs. Time to factor: 0 milliseconds The hole is: 59699254 prime factor #1 = 853043813, prime factor #2 = 614246797 853043813 x 614246797 = 523979429835916961 ---------------------Apollos_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

Apollos, On your machine the factorization should have taken a fraction of a thousandth of a second. Did you compile in debug or release mode?GilDodgen_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Do we have a scot puppet?Apollos_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Hey Mr Jass, Gil may not be the brightest bulb when it comes to ID theory, but he is a polymath. He's a great musician, adventurous hang glider and Harley biker. Don't mess with him, Dude!Arthur Smith_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

and yes my previous post was meant to start a programming language HOLY WAR...let the games begin...tsmith_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

its been a while since I've looked at C code, and you didn't have any pointers (*). I always like to throw a few of them in to keep anyone who was trying to update my code guessing..... you should move to C# or F#...you will be assimilated into the MICROSOFT EMPIRE...resistance is futiletsmith_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply