On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 3:49:21 AM UTC, Liz R wrote: > > I'm not sure I follow. Tegmark said "If you repeated the cloning > experiment from Figure 8.3 many times and wrote down your room number each > time, you'd in almost all cases find that the sequence of zeros and ones > you'd written looked random, with zeros occurring about 50% of the time." > Did Tegmark really say that? I don't believe it. And he just deemed tell us the nature of mathematics. Of course they look random - they are hexadecimal translations. or very different bases anyway. Of course the bloody average 1's about 50% of the time, as well as 0's. It's binary. Which works by flipping.
> > That seems to me to be correct. If you do the experiment 4 times you get > the sequences I typed out before, except I seem to have accidentally > doubled up! The correct sequences should read: > > *0000 0001 0010 0011 0100 0101 0110 0111 1000 1001 1010 1011 > 1100 1101 1110 1111* > > Depending on how you decide something looks random, I'd say quite a few of > those sequences do. And 0s do occur 50% of the time overall, for sure. > > binary relates to other bases simple if the other base is in the series 2^n, and arithmetically otherwise. For example, convert the following to hexadecimal without a calculator, in two steps only. 11011111101000010011000011000011 it's 2^n so easy peasy. Just copy the sequence below, then with your cursor break the copy up into sets of four. 1101 1111 1010 0001 0011 0000 1100 0011 the right to left column value of binary goes 1,2,4,8 so putting it round the same way as the binary that's 8, 4, 2, 1. So if you have 1101 and you want to convert to hex, you jusmultiply the value in each binary column by 1 or 2 or 4, or 8 depending on its position. So 1101 would be 1x8 + 1x4 + 0x2 + 1x1 = 15 in decimal which counts in 10's. But hex counts in 16's, replacing everything aftter 10 with a letter of the alphabet, thus 15d --> Eh I just taught a lot of people how to suck eggs right there. But maybe there was ONE person that wasn't 100% and is glad to now know hex :o) > I guess the sloppy phrasing is he implies 0s happen half the time in most > sequences? I don't know if that is true (it's true for 6 of the 16 > sequences above) or if it becomes more true (or almost true) with longer > sequences. Maybe a mathematician can enlighten me? > Yeah it's basically a load of bollocks any much significance as it's an archetype of the base and all the translations intrinsic in most implementations. Ask why the pattern doesn't remain constant through the bases, allowing for translation. > > I admit Max seems a little slapdash in how he phrases things in the > chapters I've read so far, presumably because he's trying to make his > subject matter seem more accessible. > "...I will describe..[reality from math] ....the greatest most large infinity of all the others to date" is what sticks in my mind. First time I read that, it put me on the floor. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
