Home > Archive > Compression > February 2005 > the Ladder Algorithym : when is abcd not cdab?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
the Ladder Algorithym : when is abcd not cdab?
|
|
| Simon Jackson, BEng. 2005-02-02, 3:55 am |
| One integer is virtical position on the ladder, the higher up the
ladder you are, the more likely it is you will have a desire to change
direction ( the orgive of indecision :)-' ). then when you go up then
down you do not do it with the same chance of down then up, as the
change in indecision by motion changes the chamces of a change of
mind.
More likely to always bump back onto ground level and be going to need
some kind of teleport at the bottom to bring the ladder into a finite
loop. but still with only 55 laddered elements, the majority selection
of an up or down world, leads to a majority of moving down over 2/3rds
the time.
The rules can be further complicated about the motion to improve on
this creation of entropic storage potential. invert the up down isim
to get the vital modulatability needed so much.
more latter
| |
| guenther vonKnakspott 2005-02-03, 3:55 pm |
|
Simon Jackson, BEng. wrote:
> One integer is virtical position on the ladder, the higher up the
> ladder you are, the more likely it is you will have a desire to
change
> direction ( the orgive of indecision :)-' ). then when you go up then
> down you do not do it with the same chance of down then up, as the
> change in indecision by motion changes the chamces of a change of
> mind.
>
> More likely to always bump back onto ground level and be going to
need
> some kind of teleport at the bottom to bring the ladder into a finite
> loop. but still with only 55 laddered elements, the majority
selection
> of an up or down world, leads to a majority of moving down over
2/3rds
> the time.
>
> The rules can be further complicated about the motion to improve on
> this creation of entropic storage potential. invert the up down isim
> to get the vital modulatability needed so much.
>
> more latter
Jackson you idiot, you can't be done with counting up to 2^78. Get lost
until you're done.
| |
| Simon Jackson, BEng. 2005-02-05, 3:55 am |
| > Jackson you idiot, you can't be done with counting up to 2^78. Get lost
> until you're done.
if you give us the ip of you counting listener i'd be intrigued but
not motivated to get my computation box to pump out my counting for me
while i did something far more interesting.
(up)(change direction)(down) (change direction) has not the same
probability of happening as (down) (change direction) (up) (change
direction) and so a general trend for the up/down bit to be slightly
more down than up is a consequence.
you deserve no more.
| |
| Pete Fraser 2005-02-05, 3:55 am |
|
"Simon Jackson, BEng." <jackokring@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:51f66f7e.0502041707.2af4ee2d@posting.google.com...
> you deserve no more.
We all deserve no more.
| |
|
| when is abcd not cdab?
NXOR (Not Exclusive OR).
|
|
|
|
|