An attempt at computing dFSCI for English language

_{Giuseppe Puccio

November 10, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

In a recent post, I was challenged to offer examples of computation of dFSCI for a list of 4 objects for which I had inferred design.

One of the objects was a Shakespeare sonnet.

My answer was the following:

A Shakespeare sonnet. Alan’s comments about that are out of order. I don’t infer design because I know of Shakespeare, or because I am fascinated by the poetry (although I am). I infer design simply because this is a piece of language with perfect meaning in english (OK, ancient english).
Now, a Shakespeare sonnet is about 600 characters long. That corresponds to a search space of about 3000 bits. Now, I cannot really compute the target space for language, but I am assuming here that the number of 600 characters sequences which make good sense in english is lower than 2^2500, and therefore the functional complexity of a Shakespeare sonnet is higher than 500 bits, Dembski’s UPB. As I am aware of no simple algorithm which can generate english sonnets from single characters, I infer design. I am certain that this is not a false positive.

In the discussion, I admitted however that I had not really computed the target space in this case:

The only point is that I have not a simple way to measure the target space for English language, so I have taken a shortcut by choosing a long enough sequence, so that I am well sure that the target space /search space ratio is above 500 bits. As I have clearly explained in my post #400.
For proteins, I have methods to approximate a lower threshold for the target space. For language I have never tried, because it is not my field, but I am sure it can be done. We need a linguist (Piotr, where are you?).
That’s why I have chosen and over-generous length. Am I wrong? Well, just offer a false positive.
For language, it is easy to show that the functional complexity is bound to increase with the length of the sequence. That is IMO true also for proteins, but it is less intuitive.

That remains true. But I have reflected, and I thought that perhaps, even if I am not a linguist and not even a amthematician, I could try to define better quantitatively the target space in this case, or at least to find a reasonable higher threshold for it.

So, here is the result of my reasonings. Again, I am neither a linguist nor a mathematician, and I will happy to consider any comment, criticism or suggestion. If I have made errors in my computations, I am ready to apologize.

Let’s start from my functional definition: any text of 600 characters which has good meaning in English.

The search space for a random search where every character has the same probability, assuming an alphabet of 30 characters (letters, space, elementary punctuation) gives easily a search space of 30^600, that is 2^2944. IOWs 2944 bits.

OK.

Now, I make the following assumptions (more or less derived from a quick Internet search:

a) There are about 200,000 words in English

b) The average length of an English word is 5 characters.

I also make the easy assumption that a text which has good meaning in English is made of English words.

For a 600 character text, we can therefore assume an average number of words of 120 (600/5).

Now, we compute the possible combinations (with repetition) of 120 words from a pool of 200000. The result, if I am right, is: 2^1453. IOWs 1453 bits.

Now, obviously each of these combinations can have n! permutations, therefore each of them has 120! different permutation, that is 2^660. IOWs 660 bits.

So, multiplying the total number of word combinations with repetitions by the total number of permutations for each combination, we have:

2^1453 * 2^660 = 2^2113

IOWs, 2113 bits.

What is this number? It is the total number of sequences of 120 words that we can derive from a pool of 200000 English words. Or at least, a good approximation of that number.

It’s a big number.

Now, the important concept: in that number are certainly included all the sequences of 600 characters which have good meaning in English. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine sequences that have good meaning in English and are not made of correct English words.

And the important question: how many of those sequences have good meaning in English? I have no idea. But anyone will agree that it must be only a small subset.

So, I believe that we can say that 2^2113 is a higher threshold for out target space of sequences of 600 characters which have a good meaning in English. And, certainly, a very generous higher threshold.

Well, if we take that number as a measure of our target space, what is the functional information in a sequence of 600 characters which has good meaning in English?

It’s easy: the ratio between target space and search space:

2^2113 / 2^ 2944 = 2^-831. IOWs, taking -log2, 831 bits of functional information. (Thank you to drc466 for the kind correction here)

So, if we consider as a measure of our functional space a number which is certainly an extremely overestimated higher threshold for the real value, still our dFSI is over 800 bits.

Let’s go back to my initial statement:

Now, a Shakespeare sonnet is about 600 characters long. That corresponds to a search space of about 3000 bits. Now, I cannot really compute the target space for language, but I am assuming here that the number of 600 characters sequences which make good sense in english is lower than 2^2500, and therefore the functional complexity of a Shakespeare sonnet is higher than 500 bits, Dembski’s UPB. As I am aware of no simple algorithm which can generate english sonnets from single characters, I infer design. I am certain that this is not a false positive.

Was I wrong? You decide.

By the way, another important result is that if I make the same computation for a 300 character string, the dFSI value is 416 bits. That is a very clear demonstration that, in language, dFSI is bound to increase with the length of the string.

Comments

fifthmonarchman: Ive done this with several different strings each one is slightly different Okay. You seem to just be looking for distinctive patterns in Shakespeare, like distinctive brush strokes in a Van Gogh. That doesn't imply anything about irreducible complexity, just personality. A sonnet by Marlowe will have a different pattern. A sonnet by someone modern will probably exhibit even more differences.Zachriel_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

zac says, What patterns do you find? Then show us how you improve it. I say, Ive done this with several different strings each one is slightly different For example I might see that the graph from the real string is more spiky than the false string (level one) Then once I reproduce that feature I might see that the real string turns up slightly every ten spots or so(level two). etc etc Slowly but surely move up the Y-axes as I learn the form/key/specification of the real string peacefifthmonarchyman_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman: look at the patterns in the entire string and reproduce them. What patterns do you find? Then show us how you improve it.Zachriel_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

zac said, Shakespeare only wrote 154 sonnets, so it would be hard to fool anyone familiar with Shakespeare. I say, Not especially hard given that the observer is only looking at a numerical string. He has no easy way of knowing what the string is representing. In other words a Shakespeare expert is at no special advantage you say, Explain how they did it. I say, look at the patterns in the entire string and reproduce them. That gets you to level one on the y-axes just were the observer is at that time. Continue to improve your string as you and the observer learn the key at higher levels. peacefifthmonarchyman_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

Zac said More important, the failure of your game doesn’t show that algorithms are not capable of generating Shakespearean poetry, only that your specific implementation can’t. I say, For the sake of any possible lurkers here it's important at this point to make clear that my hypothesis is about much more than Shakespearean poetry. I'm claiming that an algorithm can not reproduce any irreducibly complex configuration sufficiently enough to infallibly fool an observer. That is any algorithm including those combining Random Mutation with Natural Selection. My game is the method I use to test my hypothesis. I hope I have explained the details and stipulations of this method sufficiently in this thread any questions? peacefifthmonarchyman_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman: The algorithm is not being asked to reconstruct every possible sonnet it’s being asked to construct just one that will fool an observer for that knowing the form is more than sufficient Shakespeare only wrote 154 sonnets, so it would be hard to fool anyone familiar with Shakespeare. fifthmonarchyman: I already have and they can easily. Explain how they did it. fifthmonarchyman: I never claimed my game proves that it is impossible for algorithms to produce Shakespearean sonnets that’s why my approach is scientific and not philosophical. I have presented a scientific hypothesis we can only falsify it we can’t prove it. What does your game falsify? Or support? You might want to restate your hypothesis.Zachriel_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Zac says, You can specify the form, but not reconstruct every possible sonnet. I say, The algorithm is not being asked to reconstruct every possible sonnet it's being asked to construct just one that will fool an observer for that knowing the form is more than sufficient you say, so we would suggest you give the sequence of numbers to some people and see if they can generate Shakespearean sonnets based on the patterns they see in the numbers. I say, I already have and they can easily. Here is where the levels of the y-axes come in. learning the key/specification of Shakespearean sonnets is not an instantaneous process. The first level of the key is probably something like structure and grammar the other layers in the y-axes form an objective nested hierarchy upward from there. A cool thing about the game is that both the observer and the person generating Shakespearean sonnets are discovering the levels of the form at the very same time. you say Suppose you might take every Shakespearean sonnet and homogenize them to extract the basic pattern. Not sure how useful that would be. I say. That is because homogenization is what algorithms can do. Humans on the other hand discover platonic forms it is a completely different process. homogenization is bottom up discovery is top down You say, What key? You mean what Platonic form constitutes a Shakespearean sonnet? I say, The "Platonic form" the "specification" the "nonlossy data compression" the "key" All of these terms are synonymous. That is the piece of information that must be programed into the algorithm at the very beginning. you say, Instinctively, your position appears to be mush. I say, It's possible even probable that I am doing a poor job with explanation but I assure you that my position is solid and mathematically sound you say, More important, the failure of your game doesn’t show that algorithms are not capable of generating Shakespearean poetry, only that your specific implementation can’t. I say, I completely agree. I never claimed my game proves that it is impossible for algorithms to produce Shakespearean sonnets that's why my approach is scientific and not philosophical. I have presented a scientific hypothesis we can only falsify it we can't prove it. The power of the game is the personal calculative revelation that every step you take toward Shakespeare requires exponentially more complex algorithms. peacefifthmonarchyman_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

gpuccio: So, environment transfers information to the genome about how to use a proton gradient to build ATP? By assembling thousands of specific aminoacids? Sorry. We had thought we were discussing how information is transferred from the environment to the genome. Optimization of ATP pathways is an example of that process. Metabolism is very ancient, and its evolution is still enigmatic. But like most of evolution, it's important to recognize that large complexes evolved in stages. That means a complete answer won't be found in a single place or event. There is evidence of how the eukaryote mechanism evolved when mitochondria invaded the cell, which was initially explored by Lynn Margulis as a fundamental of her endosymbiotic theory. The original ATP complex probably evolved in anaerobic conditions. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26849/Zachriel_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Mung: https://uncommondescent.com.....ent-531960 Mung: To post the entire code consider: https://gist.github.com/ It's easily available with the download. In any case, it's the algorithm that matters, not the specific implementation. Mung: I don’t care what you call them {parameters}, their choice is by design. Their value or range of values is by design. Sure, like Fgravity ? m1*m2/d^2. In order to better understand the relationship, we might create an algorithm, and test some examples with different masses, distances, and gravitational constants. In the past, people would use pencil and paper and little diagrams of cannons on mountain tops. Today we use computer simulations. http://www.dynamical-systems.org/threebody/ Mung: I infer that this iterates over each character in the string and that x defines the maximum length of the string. Is that correct? Who or what chooses the value of x? The length of "Methinks it is like a weasel". It's part of the Dawkins' original algorithm. Of course, you can change this if you want. It's called an instance of a larger class. Mung: Is RandomLetter a function? What are the possible values returned by that function? Who or what chooses those values? Yes, it returns a random letter (or space). It's part of the Dawkins' original algorithm. Of course, you can change this if you want. It's called an instance of a larger class. Mung: Iow, you have to decide whether to mutate a specific position. No. Mutation of any particular position is random. Mung: The decision to not allow whole or partial increases in the size (length) of “the genome” is also a design decision. It's part of the Dawkins' original algorithm. Of course, you can change this if you want. It's called an instance of a larger class. Mung: If you disagree I will write a program that varies all this and we can see which program reaches the target. Population genetics is a mature field. There have been many such simulations, and the mathematics has been worked out over generations. You asked for an implementation of Dawkins' Weasel. That's what you got. Your objections didn't require anything other than the algorithmic description. Mung: To do this Dawkins had to select a target phrase. You can use a random target, if you prefer. "Methinks it is like a weasel" is part of Dawkins' original algorithm. Of course, you can change this if you want. It's called an instance of a larger class. Mung: Then he chose to limit his mutations to only certain replacement characters. You can use a different character set, if you prefer. It's part of the Dawkins' original algorithm. Of course, you can change this if you want. It's called an instance of a larger class. Of course you realize that in genetics there are just twenty or so bases? In any case, the algorithm doesn't simulate biological evolution, but does show that evolutionary search is much faster than random search.Zachriel_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman: Sure it does. The same way the nonlossy compression of one circle entails every other circle in the universe. You can specify the form, but not reconstruct every possible sonnet. fifthmonarchyman: If I fully and nonlossily understand what a Shakespearean sonnet is I can recognize one anywhere. So what you think is that we should be able to capture the essence of a Shakespearean sonnet, then replicate the form. Still not sure why putting it into numbers helps. In any case, you seem to think this distinguishes algorithms from people, so we would suggest you give the sequence of numbers to some people and see if they can generate Shakespearean sonnets based on the patterns they see in the numbers. fifthmonarchyman: With out the key/specification all the background knowledge in the universe is useless. You have to know what Platonic form constitutes a Shakespearean sonnet; three stanzas of four iambic pentameter lines with rhyme, ending with a rhyming couplet. That's along with spelling, grammar, some sort of unifying message, etc. Suppose you might take every Shakespearean sonnet and homogenize them to extract the basic pattern. Not sure how useful that would be. fifthmonarchyman: The algorithm has to have the key programed into it at the start. What key? You mean what Platonic form constitutes a Shakespearean sonnet? three stanzas of four iambic pentameter lines with rhyme, ending with a rhyming couplet. fifthmonarchyman: You instinctively know it to be true. Instinctively, your position appears to be mush. The real problem isn't the structure as found in a list of numbers, but the relationship between the writer and reader, which includes shared experiences that a simple algorithm could not easily encompass. More important, the failure of your game doesn't show that algorithms are not capable of generating Shakespearean poetry, only that your specific implementation can't.Zachriel_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

Me_Thinks, Ive been thinking about my response to your challenge and I believe I worded it unnecessarily harshly. What I should have said was I accept !!!!!! All I need you to do is feed your strings into my game and I believe with feed back I can identify which is Shakespeare sonnet and give the “specification/key” I used to make the identification. Now the problem is that my game right now is in the form of a excel sheet so I will need to send that to you in order for you plug your strings in. Is there a way I can contact you? peacefifthmonarchyman_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

To all who are interested: In my post #691 I have proposed a challemge, whose aim is to show that dFSCI is not an example of the TSS fallacy. IOWs, that invoking the TSS fallacy for the dFSCI procedure is a fallacy. The challenge was aimed at DNA_Jock, but it seems that he has not taken it seriously. OK. So, I propose it again here, for all who may be interested:
So, a challenge to you, in two parts. 1) Here is a 600 character sequence, which I have just generated by an online random character generator (no idea how good, truly random, it is, but I think it will do). So, here is the sequence: l.qvff..stscilrriegakbb oprzbdfbnguio.h odjjsvamrcxly mlbtihxqotillxqtifwfyalxc,vbjckobzdrjvyo.oo ,evitbhnwhyixjmyakripxjrylxcqebyeuprpipd,.yvtfbrl,qqqcuqqsmviuonqeyx eeyumkx, igzelxs hqpyriinyflyvpvblcrvbiljnk edhcnvycmikfwa,ghwuxspycpwn.mbqrcbcr w,iiqhwsd.. wcfn wuntehhj.y.sdweze.kjosyyobnsmryvw.xgyigvng nf cskcmguvl l d.eamqet.bgs,fyrcul.nq,xjexzhed.,zbigpdwssucer,ugavop.vowwz. cqmegaylpvj,khlfubz,ptt,wjbdgtuibuytprztqewhhadjhbu mssikwkqwqucxbzzqs kbjbnikehnviqdykgmjwyllhyasivg uexccpbcyowyv.vgladhihjnytzd ujnmoypvu,,blvymbxaxpx.jaoe,y.whwmib.nbfmrcsbpm,asyqgqdegs,fejv,jtu.cl i.grn qfsicb.w Now, I ask you to: 1a) Define any “definition-target” you like for that sequence. Please remember, you must not use the specific contingency in the sequence (the specific characters). 2a) Make it arbitrarily small, so that the result has extremely high functional complexity (1000 bits will do). OK? 2) Second part of the challenge. Maybe you are not happy with my sequence. Maybe it is one of the rare sequences for which it is difficult to paint a target and make it arbitrarily small. So, I will give you complete freedom in the second part of my challenge: Please, show me any sequence generated in a truly random way, for which you can paint a definition-target and make it arbitrarily small, so that it exhibits 1000 bits of functional information according to the defined function. OK? Good luck. A final disclosure: my sequence is really random (provided that the internet generator worked well). I did not design it in any way. I took the first one which came. I just decided the set of characters, including space, comma and period, and the length of the sequence (600 characters). No other intervention. So, if you conclude by my procedure that it is a negative, it will be a true negative. For a true positive, I maintain the Shakespeare sonnet. Or any post of sufficient length in this thread.
The challenge remains open. And equally open remains the other challenge: to exhibit one false positive to my dFSCI procedure by showing a 600 character long sequence, generated randomly, which has good meaning in English. EditMore Optionsgpuccio_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT}

FTR: here’s a summary of my (D) brief discussion with Gary S. Gaulin (GSG) in this thread moderated by gpuccio (G): D: 648 GSG: 668 D: 690 D: 693 G: 706 GSG: 732 D: 733 D: 734 D: 735 D: 736 GSG: 737 D: 738 D: 739 GSG: 740 GSG: 741 D: 742 D: 743 FMM: 744 D: 749 GSG: 772 D: 775 GSG: 776 D: 778 D: 783 D: 785 Then GSG decided to move the discussion to the ‘third way’ thread: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/a-third-way-of-evolution/#comment-532256 GSG: 686 D: 687 GSG: 688 GSG: 689 Then GSG switched back to this thread: GSG: 794 Note: FMM stands for fifthmonarchyman who volunteered his comments on the discussion. The onlookers/lurkers may read the referenced posts in the indicated sequence and arrive at their own conclusions. The referenced comments by gpuccio and fifthmonarchyman can provide a hint. BTW, I'm a student, not a scientist. My scientific credibility is none, zero, nada, null. That's why I ask simple questions in order to learn. But apparently some folks don't like my questions. Are my simple questions really that inconvenient? :)Dionisio_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

Zachriel: "You asked about the formation of the existing proton gradient used to build ATP." It does not become you to quote things imprecisely. What I asked: So, environment transfers information to the genome about how to use a proton gradient to build ATP? By assembling thousands of specific aminoacids? Emphasis added. I did not ask about "the formation of the existing proton gradient". Which would be an interesting issue too, because it also requires very complex enzymes. And again, there is nothing, in the paper you linked, about what I asked.gpuccio_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT}

Dionisio:
But now do you understand the problem that is being at the core of most serious biology-related discussions here and out there? Do you understand that’s the same problem that apparently has made a group of respected scientists to promote a third way of evolution, hoping to get somewhere?
I answered that in a few replies to the "A third way" thread: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/a-third-way-of-evolution/#comment-532256 To be truthful, the problem at the core of this most serious biology-related discussion are the know-it-alls constantly changing the subject away from what the premise of the "theory of intelligent design" even says. Instead of your setting a good example to follow by being as scientifically precise as science demands, you're teaching the opposite. Ignoring all that most matters in real (not pop) science has caused you to without knowing it knock yourself right out of the scientific arena. Nothing to even be a contender with. I can only use what little time I have to let you know what you're actually up against. How much more serious damage you do to yourself and those you represent by fighting it is all up to you.Gary S. Gaulin_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT}

Zachriel: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/an-attempt-at-computing-dfsci-for-english-language/#comment-531960Mung_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT}

zac said, Um, no. The compression of one sonnet does not entail every other sonnet. That makes no sense. I say, Sure it does. The same way the nonlossy compression of one circle entails every other circle in the universe. Welcome to world out side the cave ;-) If I fully and nonlossily understand what a Shakespearean sonnet is I can recognize one anywhere. The set of Shakespearean sonnets is irreducibly complex it contains all Shakespearean sonnets and nothing else. You say, Why do that when it’s the algorithm that would be of interest? I say, I said if I wanted to.In this game we have only one objective that is to fool the observer. you say, If so, then such an algorithm would include much of the same background knowledge as Shakespeare, including knowledge of rhyme and rhythm, grammar and voice. I say With out the key/specification all the background knowledge in the universe is useless. You have admitted as much. You have better resources at you fingertips than Shakespeare could dream of. The thing is that unlike me an algorithm can never discover the key and make use of background knowledge. The algorithm has to have the key programed into it at the start. That is why you are struggling so much with this. You instinctively know it to be true. There is no way out of the cave for an algorithm. you say, If you were to create an algorithm to produce Shakespearean sonnets, you would work with rhyme and rhythm. I say, There is the admission for all to see. With out the key an algorithm is forever stuck trying build the unknown impossible one step at a time from the bottom up. Quite a contrast to what a designer can easily do once he discovers the key. You say, In any case, there would no point in turning it into numbers. I say And there is the feigned obtuseness right on cue peacefifthmonarchyman_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

gpuccio: There is nothing in that paper about protein sequences and how to get to the right enzymes. You asked about the formation of the existing proton gradient used to build ATP. The paper supports that the current system came about through a process of optimization. As this optimization is a clear advantage to the cell, it answers your more general question as to how environmental feedback can bring about complex adaptation.Zachriel_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

DNA_Jock: I disagree, but we are just repeating ourselves here, which is something that I really dislike. I had thought of other examples, but I am tired of this discussion. You have not accepted my challenge, as far as I can see, but that is your privilege. As I am the host in this thread, I will happily leave to you the last word.gpuccio_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: "As for ATP synthesis, there is evidence the current system came about through a process of optimization. See Ebenhöh & Heinrich, Evolutionary optimization of metabolic pathways. Theoretical reconstruction of the stoichiometry of ATP and NADH producing systems, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 2001." There is nothing in that paper about protein sequences and how to get to the right enzymes.gpuccio_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

Any algorithm that can produce a sonnet by Shakespeare will contain the sonnet, rendering the point moot.Joe_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

Is there a way to approve and submit the post without waiting the 5 minutes?Dionisio_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

Just noticed the nice editing feature now available for a few minutes after posting comments. Thanks!Dionisio_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

#778 error correction
But now do you understand the problem that is ~~being~~ at the core of...
Dionisio_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchman: The key is the specification!! In this case a Shakespearean sonnet. Or a sonnet similar enough to have been produced by Shakespeare or other such poet. fifthmonarchman: The key is nothing less than a nonlossy compression of the original string Um, no. The compression of one sonnet does not entail every other sonnet. That makes no sense. fifthmonarchman: If I wanted to put up the effort I could simply patriot existing sonnets and fool everyone but the experts into thinking I had produced an original work of Shakespeare. Why do that when it's the algorithm that would be of interest? Try to break it down. Are you trying to show that an algorithm can't produce a Shakespearean sonnet? If so, then such an algorithm would include much of the same background knowledge as Shakespeare, including knowledge of rhyme and rhythm, grammar and voice. In any case, there would no point in turning it into numbers. fifthmonarchyman: There are only two ways to produce a Shakespearean sonnet 1) be Shakespeare 2) copy Shakespeare I remove the string from it’s context in order to take the second option off the table You don't need the string of numbers for any purpose that we can see. If you were to create an algorithm to produce Shakespearean sonnets, you would work with rhyme and rhythm.Zachriel_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

#778 error correction
Can your theory explains the origin and functioning of that process? How?

Can your theory explain the origin and functioning of that process? How?
Dionisio_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

I'm so glad we have finally gotten to this point in the conversation it's been a long trip. Thanks for traveling it with me I feel as though there may be questions/objections and I want to make sure I am being understood so let her rip. peacefifthmonarchyman_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

Lest you think the feedback that the game gives me is some how cheating. Keep in mind Zac the programer gets exactly the same feedback. That is what is happening every time his algorithm fails to pass the test. peacefifthmonarchyman_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

Me_Think says, Well since you insist, can you identify which is Shakespeare sonnet among the following five strings? and if possible can you intuit the “specification/key” ? I say, Now you are getting the idea but your challenge is missing something however. In order to accomplish what you ask I need to begin to Lossless-ly compress data in the sonnet. My game facilitates this by giving feed back. Each time I think I have discovered the key/specification the game tells me if I am correct or not. By reflecting on this I'm able to pretty quickly tell if I'm on the right track You will notice something superficially similar in this approach to RM/NS. There is however a profound difference between what I'm doing and what an algorithm does. The difference is that my data-compression is nonlossy!!!!!!!!! Something that is beyond the abilities of algorithmic processes to accomplish. This strange magic difference between me and an algorithm is exactly what has been mathematically proven in the paper I keep referencing. You need to actually experience this spooky reality to fully grasp the weight of the insight. I've got to get the app done. Stay tuned peacefifthmonarchyman_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman @ 777,
I’m also saying that since I’m not an algorithm I can “intuit/discover” the specification/key No more long fruitless discussions on internet blogs.
Well since you insist, can you identify which is Shakespeare sonnet among the following five strings? and if possible can you intuit the "specification/key" ? 1.a ghehx pyc ajya fwn sos lyogaogt ghhs, Ags ajhxhuwxh aw fwnx uyox gw lyogaogt pha; I uwngs, wx ajwntja I uwngs, fwn sos hqdhhs Tjya byxxhg ahgshx wu y lwha'p shba: Ags ajhxhuwxh jyeh I pvhla og fwnx xhlwxa, Tjya fwn fwnxphvu, bhogt hqayga, chvv zotja pjwc Hwc uyx y zwshxg knovv swaj dwzh aww pjwxa, Slhyrogt wu cwxaj, cjya cwxaj og fwn swaj txwc. Tjop povhgdh uwx zf pog fwn sos ozlnah, Wjodj pjyvv bh zwpa zf tvwxf bhogt snzb; Fwx I ozlyox gwa bhynaf bhogt znah, Wjhg wajhxp cwnvs toeh vouh, ygs bxogt y awzb. Tjhxh voehp zwxh vouh og wgh wu fwnx uyox hfhp Tjyg bwaj fwnx lwhap dyg og lxyoph sheoph. 2. cp uypa yp ajwn pjyva cygh, pw uypa ajwn txwc'pa, Ig wgh wu ajogh, uxwz ajya cjodj ajwn shlyxahpa; Ags ajya uxhpj bvwws cjodj fwngtvf ajwn bhpawc'pa, Tjwn zyfpa dyvv ajogh cjhg ajwn uxwz fwnaj dwgehxahpa, Hhxhog voehp copswz, bhynaf, ygs ogdxhyph; Woajwna ajop uwvvf, yth, ygs dwvs shdyf: Iu yvv chxh zogshs pw, ajh aozhp pjwnvs dhyph Ags ajxhhpdwxh fhyx cwnvs zyrh ajh cwxvs ycyf. Lha ajwph cjwz gyanxh jyaj gwa zysh uwx pawxh, Hyxpj, uhyanxhvhpp, ygs xnsh, byxxhgvf lhxopj: Lwwr, cjwz pjh bhpa hgswc's, pjh tyeh ajhh zwxh; Wjodj bwngahwnp toua ajwn pjwnvspa og bwngaf djhxopj: Sjh dyxe's ajhh uwx jhx phyv, ygs zhyga ajhxhbf, Tjwn pjwnvspa lxoga zwxh, gwa vha ajya dwlf soh. 3. ep oa uwx uhyx aw cha y coswc'p hfh, Tjya ajwn dwgpnz'pa ajf phvu og pogtvh vouh? Aj! ou ajwn oppnhvhpp pjyva jyl aw soh, Tjh cwxvs covv cyov ajhh vorh y zyrhvhpp couh; Tjh cwxvs covv bh ajf coswc ygs paovv chhl Tjya ajwn gw uwxz wu ajhh jypa vhua bhjogs, Wjhg hehxf lxoeyah coswc chvv zyf rhhl Bf djovsxhg'p hfhp, jhx jnpbygs'p pjylh og zogs: Lwwr! cjya yg ngajxoua og ajh cwxvs swaj plhgs Sjouap bna jop lvydh, uwx paovv ajh cwxvs hgiwfp oa; Bna bhynaf'p cypah jyaj og ajh cwxvs yg hgs, Ags rhla ngnphs ajh nphx pw shpaxwfp oa. Nw vweh awcyxs wajhxp og ajya bwpwz poap Tjya wg jozphvu pndj znxs'xwnp pjyzh dwzzoap. 4. sw op oa gwa coaj zh yp coaj ajya Mnph, Saoxx's bf y lyogahs bhynaf aw jop ehxph, Wjw jhyehg oaphvu uwx wxgyzhga swaj nph Ags hehxf uyox coaj jop uyox swaj xhjhyxph, Myrogt y dwnlvhzhga wu lxwns dwzlyxh' Woaj png ygs zwwg, coaj hyxaj ygs phy'p xodj thzp, Woaj Alxov'p uoxpa-bwxg uvwchxp, ygs yvv ajogtp xyxh, Tjya jhyehg'p yox og ajop jnth xwgsnxh jhzp. O! vha zh, axnh og vweh, bna axnvf cxoah, Ags ajhg bhvoheh zh, zf vweh op yp uyox Ap ygf zwajhx'p djovs, ajwntj gwa pw bxotja Ap ajwph twvs dygsvhp uoq's og jhyehg'p yox: Lha ajhz pyf zwxh ajya vorh wu jhyxpyf chvv; I covv gwa lxyoph ajya lnxlwph gwa aw phvv. 5. gf tvypp pjyvv gwa lhxpnysh zh I yz wvs, Sw vwgt yp fwnaj ygs ajwn yxh wu wgh syah; Bna cjhg og ajhh aozh'p unxxwcp I bhjwvs, Tjhg vwwr I shyaj zf syfp pjwnvs hqloyah. Fwx yvv ajya bhynaf ajya swaj dwehx ajhh, Ip bna ajh phhzvf xyozhga wu zf jhyxa, Wjodj og ajf bxhypa swaj voeh, yp ajogh og zh: Hwc dyg I ajhg bh hvshx ajyg ajwn yxa? O! ajhxhuwxh vweh, bh wu ajfphvu pw cyxf Ap I, gwa uwx zfphvu, bna uwx ajhh covv; Bhyxogt ajf jhyxa, cjodj I covv rhhl pw djyxf Ap ahgshx gnxph jhx bybh uxwz uyxogt ovv. Pxhpnzh gwa wg aj;jhyxa cjhg zogh op pvyog, Tjwn tye'pa zh ajogh gwa aw toeh bydr ytyog.Me_Think_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 31 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply