An experiment??

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Originally Posted by LostChemist

So, these numbers are to try EVERY combination right? But statistically speaking, we might get it "right" after only 5 tries for example. So... There is still the very remote possibility that we could achieve this once in the lifetime of the universe, not at all, or 5 times for all we know. It's nice to know the numbers though! Thanks for doing the math!

The number 105400 represents (roughly) the possible combinations of 68 characters available on a sheet of 216 x 280 (mm) piece of paper that contains about 3000 total possible characters. It is possible that the first sheet of paper has the best poem ever written, for example (some of the other examples Qoeleth gave I do not believe could fit on a single sheet of paper as he claims).

If Qoeleth had started this program at the beginning of time 14.6 billion years ago,

• only about 1017 pages would be written at one page per second (pps)
• about 1017 pages would be written at 100 pps
• about 1023 pages would be written at 1,000,000 pps
• and so on

Clearly, in order to write 105400 pages in the time of the universe, one would need to spit out 105383 pages per second. Quite impossible.

[Qoeleth]

Originally Posted by Alberti_Devoveo

Assuming standard borders, using Times New Roman font at a 12 pt font size, about 3000 characters can be typed on a page. There are 26 letters, 32 symbols, and 10 numbers on a standard American keyboard. Since characters are repeatable, it's a N^M type formula (N is the number of characters per page and M is the number of characters).

Thus: 2.8x10236 possible combinations of characters on a page.

The estimated total number of particles in the observable universe is 1080 and the number of seconds elapsed since the big bang is roughly 4.6x1017, I would say that it would be impossible to ever do so.

OK- let's me propose a modification. We know that great, transcendental and world-changing truths may be expressed in just ONE life of text "God is Love", "e=mc^2", "Blessed are the poor", etc. Now, assuming the best possible summary, the heart of any truth could be summarised to a one life statement.

Now, I count 80 character a line. If there are 26 character, 32 symbols, 10 numbers- let's say a total number of 82- will it be 80^82?

But this seems to exceed the total number of particles in the Universe already, quite radically?

So, there are many more possible lines of text, than there are particles in the universe?

In fact, would it be true to say that if the number of particles in the universe is 10^80, then the number of possible 10 character combinations ("God is love" is already 11 characters!), would approximately equal the number of particles in the universe?

Does this also mean, that any line of text I (or anybody else) writes, is virtually infinitely improbable- or more improable than anything in the Universe?

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Originally Posted by Qoeleth

OK- let's me propose a modification. We know that great, transcendental and world-changing truths may be expressed in just ONE life of text "God is Love", "e=mc^2", "Blessed are the poor", etc. Now, assuming the best possible summary, the heart of any truth could be summarised to a one life statement.

Now, I count 80 character a line. If there are 26 character, 32 symbols, 10 numbers- let's say a total number of 82- will it be 80^82?

But this seems to exceed the total number of particles in the Universe already, quite radically?

So, there are many more possible lines of text, than there are particles in the universe?

In fact, would it be true to say that if the number of particles in the universe is 10^80, then the number of possible 10 character combinations ("God is love" is already 11 characters!), would approximately equal the number of particles in the universe?

Does this also mean, that any line of text I (or anybody else) writes, is virtually infinitely improbable- or more improable than anything in the Universe?

26+32+10=68, so 6880~10146 which is more than the number of atoms in the observable universe.
Using 11 characters in the phrase "God is love" (excluding quotes, obviously), there's a total of 6811~1020. You still would not be able to write this in the total life-time of the universe, assuming a one-second-per-trial basis.

The problem with using random placement of characters is that there are more chances of gibberish than there are chances coherent words. There is only one way to write "the" but there are 368~1032 different combinations of three characters (326~1012 for letters only)! What you write is not random. Nor is what anyone else writes. It comes from structured syntax and known spelling.

[TheTrueCentrist]

Originally Posted by LostChemist

So, these numbers are to try EVERY combination right? But statistically speaking, we might get it "right" after only 5 tries for example. So... There is still the very remote possibility that we could achieve this once in the lifetime of the universe, not at all, or 5 times for all we know. It's nice to know the numbers though! Thanks for doing the math!

You may not comprehend the enormity of these numbers. What you have proposed is less likely than winning a lottery every second for the duration of the universe. Indeed, I suspect it is about as likely as leaving a cold glass of lemonade on your porch in the summer and returning to find it colder than you left it.

[TheTrueCentrist]

Originally Posted by Alberti_Devoveo

26+32+10=68, so 6880~10146 which is more than the number of atoms in the observable universe.
Using 11 characters in the phrase "God is love" (excluding quotes, obviously), there's a total of 6811~1020. You still would not be able to write this in the total life-time of the universe, assuming a one-second-per-trial basis.

The problem with using random placement of characters is that there are more chances of gibberish than there are chances coherent words. There is only one way to write "the" but there are 368~1032 different combinations of three characters (326~1012 for letters only)! What you write is not random. Nor is what anyone else writes. It comes from structured syntax and known spelling.

Nope, you've got your exponentiation backwards. It is always (number of possible symbols)^(number of symbols you are selecting) so for 3 letters it would be 26^3.

Why? Consider picking 1 letter from the alphabet. How many possible results could you get? Obviously 26^1 not 1^26.

What about 2 letters? Well for the first letter, there are 26 possibilities. There are also 26 possibilities for the second letter. To find out the total possible results we multiply: 26 * 26 = 26^2

[Qoeleth]

Originally Posted by TheTrueCentrist

Nope, you've got your exponentiation backwards. It is always (number of possible symbols)^(number of symbols you are selecting) so for 3 letters it would be 26^3.

Why? Consider picking 1 letter from the alphabet. How many possible results could you get? Obviously 26^1 not 1^26.

What about 2 letters? Well for the first letter, there are 26 possibilities. There are also 26 possibilities for the second letter. To find out the total possible results we multiply: 26 * 26 = 26^2

Well spotted.

Now, the fact that the number of potential texts apparently exceeds the sixze and duration of the universe- does this imply that language (the text) is greater than 'reality'?

If 'the text' is thus bigger and more varied than the universe- does this prove what Derrida said, "There is nothing outside the text."?

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Originally Posted by TheTrueCentrist

Nope, you've got your exponentiation backwards. It is always (number of possible symbols)^(number of symbols you are selecting) so for 3 letters it would be 26^3.

Why? Consider picking 1 letter from the alphabet. How many possible results could you get? Obviously 26^1 not 1^26.

What about 2 letters? Well for the first letter, there are 26 possibilities. There are also 26 possibilities for the second letter. To find out the total possible results we multiply: 26 * 26 = 26^2

If there is one space and 68 characters, then there's 681 possibilities. If there's 2 spaces for any 2 of the 68 characters, then there's 682 possibilities. And so on. If there are 11 spaces to put any 11 of the 68 total characters, then there are 6811 possibilities. If there are 80 spaces to put any 80 of the total 68 characters, then there are 6880 characters. Seems I did it right.

[Qoeleth]

Originally Posted by Alberti_Devoveo

If there is one space and 68 characters, then there's 681 possibilities. If there's 2 spaces for any 2 of the 68 characters, then there's 682 possibilities. And so on. If there are 11 spaces to put any 11 of the 68 total characters, then there are 6811 possibilities. If there are 80 spaces to put any 80 of the total 68 characters, then there are 6880 characters. Seems I did it right.

Yes, that does seem right.
The number of possibilities (letters or characters), to the power of how many spaces there are.

[FurtherSuntime]

Originally Posted by TheTrueCentrist

Nope, you've got your exponentiation backwards. It is always (number of possible symbols)^(number of symbols you are selecting) so for 3 letters it would be 26^3.

Why? Consider picking 1 letter from the alphabet. How many possible results could you get? Obviously 26^1 not 1^26.

What about 2 letters? Well for the first letter, there are 26 possibilities. There are also 26 possibilities for the second letter. To find out the total possible results we multiply: 26 * 26 = 26^2

All u gotta do is manually figure how many pairs in 9....then you'll see the mistake in the multiplying out in a visual. For pairs it always one less....so pairs in 9 add 87654321
...pairs in 4....add 321....ok so 6....lets see if its right.

1-4, 1-3, 1-2....2-4,2-3...3-4.. thats 6....your idea would have said 16 (4 times 4

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Originally Posted by Alberti_Devoveo

If there is one space and 68 characters, then there's 681 possibilities. If there's 2 spaces for any 2 of the 68 characters, then there's 682 possibilities. And so on. If there are 11 spaces to put any 11 of the 68 total characters, then there are 6811 possibilities. If there are 80 spaces to put any 80 of the total 68 characters, then there are 6880 characters. Seems I did it right.

I see. It was in the second half that I messed up. It's 683~106

[Just Lurking]

Originally Posted by MPat

In other words, it's something similar to the "library" described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel..?

Or perhaps The_Nine_Billion_Names_of_God.

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Originally Posted by Qoeleth

Well spotted.

Now, the fact that the number of potential texts apparently exceeds the sixze and duration of the universe- does this imply that language (the text) is greater than 'reality'?

If 'the text' is thus bigger and more varied than the universe- does this prove what Derrida said, "There is nothing outside the text."?

All this thought experiment of yours proves is that language is not random, which we knew in the first place. There are rules of grammar, syntax, spelling, etc that cannot be computed by the multiplicity of character placement.

[Gaber]

Originally Posted by Alberti_Devoveo

All this thought experiment of yours proves is that language is not random, which we knew in the first place. There are rules of grammar, syntax, spelling, etc that cannot be computed by the multiplicity of character placement.

So a large part of this conversation is based on literalism, or the idea that the word is its referent?

[Qoeleth]

Originally Posted by Gaber

So a large part of this conversation is based on literalism, or the idea that the word is its referent?

Of course. Ultimately all words are their own referents. The distinction between signifier and signified is a fiction.

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Originally Posted by Qoeleth

Of course. Ultimately all words are their own referents. The distinction between signifier and signified is a fiction.

I see. So the word 'tree' is the same as an actual tree?