/me spits out cereal / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

/me spits out cereal

1 2 next

Move Thread

LAN_403

Adam Munich

Thu Aug 04 2011, 04:39AM

Registered Member #2893 Joined: Tue Jun 01 2010, 09:25PM
Location: Cali-forn. i. a.
Posts: 2242

Now this comic has really got me thinking...

>> Sure 256 bit images would make 256^800*600 total images, but 16 bit images would only make 16^800*600 which is a very much smaller amount.

>> 800*600 isn't a lot of resolution, but here's the thing. One can easily take a 1600*1200 image and split it into four 800*600 images, and since those would also exist in the "pool" one could have for the most part any resolution the want! That is, until you reach the point where each 800*600 image becomes a pixel on the large composite image.

>> Using image matching and search algorithms garbage images can be discarded.

...discuss plz kthx.

Forty

Thu Aug 04 2011, 05:02AM

Registered Member #3888 Joined: Sun May 15 2011, 09:50PM
Location: Erie, PA
Posts: 649

even if you could get every atom in the universe to each store septillions of yottabytes for you, you'd still be far, far... really far away from storing that much data.
not to mention the ridiculous time scales of all that computing.
it's an interesting thought experiment though.

haxor5354

Thu Aug 04 2011, 05:44AM

Registered Member #2063 Joined: Sat Apr 04 2009, 03:16PM
Location: Toronto
Posts: 352

you will have

2.498945405262282644094405428218702949339949 48752482523237355034 49140603787414717725794486164408145831570853580691 59851578568594 99208653939506355080405258582540669408349543598781 549935389929328 16903550991281862352179953665466873079658584845191 4696431737258882 3119427910778224432956043254888425766876042657426103980601557351419 17773796905059901123724108937263400721211763701303 374517338763081007 51831950094967124089775605445648449536 x 10^1155955 possible images

BIG EXPONENT CALCULATOR -->

[Edit: Don't mess with the format of the forum]

currentkills91

Thu Aug 04 2011, 05:59AM

Registered Member #3831 Joined: Thu Apr 14 2011, 02:54PM
Location:
Posts: 265

Interesting idea indeed, and yeah, that's alot of pictures and alot of data :/

haxor5354

Thu Aug 04 2011, 06:06AM

Registered Member #2063 Joined: Sat Apr 04 2009, 03:16PM
Location: Toronto
Posts: 352

indeed, 2.5 times 10 to the 1.2 million pictures is ALOT of data to store, let alone using a text reconition softwarez shifting through every single one of them!

Thomas W

Thu Aug 04 2011, 09:42AM

Registered Member #3324 Joined: Sun Oct 17 2010, 06:57PM
Location:
Posts: 1276

although come to think of it all the false pictures would be there too :(

Mads Barnkob

Thu Aug 04 2011, 11:20AM

Registered Member #1403 Joined: Tue Mar 18 2008, 06:05PM
Location: Denmark, Odense C
Posts: 1968

Grenadier wrote ...

800*600 isn't a lot of resolution, but here's the thing. One can easily take a 1600*1200 image and split it into four 800*600 images, and since those would also exist in the "pool"
one could have for the most part any resolution the want! That is, until you reach the point where each 800*600 image becomes a pixel on the large composite image.

...discuss plz kthx.

If we are down to the 800x600 pictures representing a pixel of a larger image.

It would make more sense to have two 1x1 pixel images, a black and white, put together randomly, analysed and stored if worth of interest according to the algorithm. This way you only have to handle a whole lot of data, not store all of it.

Dr. Slack

Thu Aug 04 2011, 12:10PM

Registered Member #72 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 08:29AM
Location: UK St. Albans
Posts: 1659

I had a similar train of thought for CDs a while ago as I struggled to enjoy the music my kids had left in the car.

Let's see, if I changed one bit in this recording, I'd probably not notice
I could change the key slightly, or the tempo, or the instruments used, and still have essentially the same song, and totaly different bit pattrern.
I could put different numbers of mS silence between tracks, and still have pretty much the same album.
There are gazillions of different bit patterns that would be effectively indistinguishable from this CD.
An hour of recorded speech could represent any idea.

But I have heard assertions that there is no limit to the number of possible songs, or ideas, ie there could be an infinite number.

However, there's a finite number of bit patterns possible for a CD.
And *almost all* random collections of bits on that CD would sound like unintelligble noise.

Which means the number of possible songs, or speeches is very very very small, and finite.

I think the answer to both is that I know 100 is 10x bigger than 10, and have a good feel for it. I know that theoretically 10,000,000 is 10x bigger than 1,000,000, but haven't got a good feel for it. I haven't got the foggiest notion how much bigger 10^1000000 feels than 10^10000 in a way that would allow me to dismiss something that relied on the difference as obviously stupid.

radiotech

Thu Aug 04 2011, 01:24PM

Registered Member #2463 Joined: Wed Nov 11 2009, 03:49AM
Location:
Posts: 1546

Consider this:

A man developed a method to count sheets of metal being flipped over
in a process. It was a simple puffer activated microswitch that closed as the
air rush from the sheet passed over it. Being so simple, he added a brick to
the enclosure so everone who hefted it would think it was as complex as it was
fuctional.

My new unit for complexity is the HEFTON. A probablistic particle of
intelligence applied to systems that is measured prior to activation.

Linux and Microsoft are getting there. Software will run even with
multiple errors, just slower.

Forty

Thu Aug 04 2011, 04:34PM

Registered Member #3888 Joined: Sun May 15 2011, 09:50PM
Location: Erie, PA
Posts: 649

@dr. slack
the age of the universe, in those unnoticeable milliseconds of cd silence, is only about 4.7x10^20 ms.
the diameter of the visible universe in angstroms is about 8.8x10^36
and the # of atoms in it is on the order of 10^80.

the permutations of even a 5x5 grid of black and white squares would take a terahertz processor 492,000 years to generate lol.

I think anything larger than maybe 10^40 is best just approximated to be infinity

1 2 next

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob