search results matching tag: aleph
» channel: nordic
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds
- 1
Videos (1) | Sift Talk (0) | Blogs (0) | Comments (8) |
- 1
Videos (1) | Sift Talk (0) | Blogs (0) | Comments (8) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
jonny (Member Profile)
Not yet, I think I will try it though. I tried to find marathon for pc on torrent but found nothing I wanted. I remember marathon from sixteen years ago or whatnot.
In reply to this comment by jonny:
You ever play Marathon/Aleph One?
Karl Pilkington and Ricky Gervais Discuss Infinity
Actually I don't think the issue of representation is critical here. I think it's very easy to point out where Ariane went wrong:
"What are the odds that the random number generator would spit out the Shakespeare number? About 1 in infinity."
That's our intuition, but it's wrong. That's why this thought experiment is interesting. The likelihood is perhaps 1 in 10^10000000, but it is very much not "about 1 in infinity".
>> ^Sotto_Voce:
>> ^Ariane:
Pilkington is right. It would never happen. Lets just reduce this whole idea to mathematics. The complete works of Shakespeare can be translated to a number, by converting every character to ASCII, and ASCII to binary, so you end up with a really large binary number, which you can convert to decimal if you are so inclined.
So we have one number representing the complete works of Shakespeare. Then instead on Monkeys with typewriters, we have a random number generator, that can spit out any number from 1 to infinity. What are the odds that the random number generator would spit out the Shakespeare number? About 1 in infinity. Or for you calculus geeks, the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity = 0.
So what happens if you ran the number generator an infinite number of times. Turns out infinity x infinity = infinity. Or again to be more exact aleph-naught times aleph-naught equals aleph-naught. So we are still at 0. What if we had an infinite number of number generators. That would be aleph-naught cubed, which is still equal to aleph-naught. Therefore, the odds are still zero.
You're using the wrong probability distribution. If we do what you suggest and convert each possible string of characters into a binary number, then the monkey experiment will not give us a uniform distribution over the binary numbers. It won't be like a random number generator. The monkey experiment gives us a uniform distribution over individual characters, and this does not translate into a uniform distribution over strings. As an example, consider the string "ee" vs. the string corresponding to Tolstoy's "War and Peace". Each of these corresponds to a single binary number, and if your random number generator analogy is right, then they should be equally likely. But obviously a monkey is far more likely to type "ee" than "War and Peace".
Karl Pilkington and Ricky Gervais Discuss Infinity
>> ^Ariane:
Pilkington is right. It would never happen. Lets just reduce this whole idea to mathematics. The complete works of Shakespeare can be translated to a number, by converting every character to ASCII, and ASCII to binary, so you end up with a really large binary number, which you can convert to decimal if you are so inclined.
So we have one number representing the complete works of Shakespeare. Then instead on Monkeys with typewriters, we have a random number generator, that can spit out any number from 1 to infinity. What are the odds that the random number generator would spit out the Shakespeare number? About 1 in infinity. Or for you calculus geeks, the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity = 0.
So what happens if you ran the number generator an infinite number of times. Turns out infinity x infinity = infinity. Or again to be more exact aleph-naught times aleph-naught equals aleph-naught. So we are still at 0. What if we had an infinite number of number generators. That would be aleph-naught cubed, which is still equal to aleph-naught. Therefore, the odds are still zero.
You're using the wrong probability distribution. If we do what you suggest and convert each possible string of characters into a binary number, then the monkey experiment will not give us a uniform distribution over the binary numbers. It won't be like a random number generator. The monkey experiment gives us a uniform distribution over individual characters, and this does not translate into a uniform distribution over strings. As an example, consider the string "ee" vs. the string corresponding to Tolstoy's "War and Peace". Each of these corresponds to a single binary number, and if your random number generator analogy is right, then they should be equally likely. But obviously a monkey is far more likely to type "ee" than "War and Peace".
Karl Pilkington and Ricky Gervais Discuss Infinity
Pilkington is right. It would never happen. Lets just reduce this whole idea to mathematics. The complete works of Shakespeare can be translated to a number, by converting every character to ASCII, and ASCII to binary, so you end up with a really large binary number, which you can convert to decimal if you are so inclined.
So we have one number representing the complete works of Shakespeare. Then instead on Monkeys with typewriters, we have a random number generator, that can spit out any number from 1 to infinity. What are the odds that the random number generator would spit out the Shakespeare number? About 1 in infinity. Or for you calculus geeks, the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity = 0.
So what happens if you ran the number generator an infinite number of times. Turns out infinity x infinity = infinity. Or again to be more exact aleph-naught times aleph-naught equals aleph-naught. So we are still at 0. What if we had an infinite number of number generators. That would be aleph-naught cubed, which is still equal to aleph-naught. Therefore, the odds are still zero.
The Church of Science & Knowledge has found the 'One'
Wait, people are saying this wasn't a send-up of scientology?
Scientology = the branch of knowledge concerned with science.
Hence, Church of Science and Knowledge is a pretty obvious reference to Scientology.
The personality test is one of the things Scientology is best known for. I don't know of any other major cults or New Religious Movements which even use personality tests,
The office itself is a direct parody of Scientology branches.
Honestly, I can't see how this can be reasonably interpreted any other way.
>> ^dannym3141:
The personality test is NOT a trademark system of scientology, i remember stories about cults when i was 5 that started you out with a personality test,
Can you name one? The Temple of Damanhur doesn't. Eckankar doesn't. The Raelians don't. The Moonies don't. The Hare Krishnas don't. Heaven's Gate didn't. Summum doesn't. Aleph (formerly Aum Shinrikyo) doesn't.
DJ Spooky -Scanner Darkly
Tags for this video have been changed from 'DJspooky, subliminalkid, aleph, callsign, ascannerdarkly, nuclear, nukes' to 'DJspooky, subliminalkid, aleph, callsign, ascannerdarkly, nuclear, nukes, bomb' - edited by calvados
DJ Spooky -Scanner Darkly
Tags for this video have been changed from 'DJspooky, subliminalkid, aleph, callsign, ascannerdarkly' to 'DJspooky, subliminalkid, aleph, callsign, ascannerdarkly, nuclear, nukes' - edited by calvados
Scary Group Therapy
Israeli sketch comedy. Aleph, hay, hay, hay.