Evolution through the Back Door

Various | 6/15/2003 | Alamo-Girl

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Another interesting thing is that you could concatenate the primes (for example) and divide by 13 (treating the string as a big number). The resulting quotient also generates Shakespeare.

Again, this formulation is more appealing because I do not see a high autocorrelation on first blush!

I don't know where. I could give an upper bound that would guarantee the you would find it before that, but it's a big bound.

Wouldn't that guarantee finding it by using a particular bit offset? IOW, the bit offset of the beginning bit of the number which is Shakespeare would obviously work - but can it be reduced?

[Doctor Stochastic]

That's why you only get an upper bound. Perhaps lower perhaps not. As these numbers all obey the "strong law of large numbers" they all have about the same behavior. The strong law (in this case) says that all bit sequences will appear with the proper frequency. That is half 1's, half 0's, a quarter each of 00,01,10,11, etc.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the information! I had read that Champernowne's constant is known for that in base ten, but not determined in other bases. Are there new determinations?

[Doctor Stochastic]

It's trivial. Champernowne's construction (and others) works in any base. It's based on a (not so simple) counting argument.

[Alamo-Girl]

Ahhh. Ok, then I won't worry about it. Thanks for your post!

[Mr. Mojo]

To an objectivist "reality" is that which exists

Reality that can be perceived with the senses.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the correction!

[Doctor Stochastic]

I can tell you that peer review is not a problem as to content of scientific papers. I have been a reviewer and a reviewee. The main purpose is to catch gross errors (like 2+2=5) and typos and to just see if an article is fit for a particular journal. I have sometimes that an article would be better served in other journals than the one I'm reviewing for; this is generally to get a wider audience for the paper.

The only whining I've seen about peer-review suggests to me that it works. There's lots of nut-cases who submit papers on things like the "Aliens who Kidnapped Kennedy from the Grassy Knoll" and stuff. Peer review weeds out this type of stuff.

If you have a suggestion to improve the system, by all means make it.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

One suggestion comes to mind, that there be a publication for rejected articles upon the author's approval - giving the article as written and the letter(s) of rejection and being made available to the general public.

[Doctor Stochastic]

That could be done. But most rejections are for things such as grammar (I'm going to reject an article for continual subject-verb disagreements which confuse the actual point being made.) or just for certain nutty statements such as "All continuous functions are differentiable" which keep showing up.

Mostly the authors just go for peer review for corrections (although I still have a paper to re-write because my proofs aren't strong enough.) but some are just crazy. We still get things like "squaring the circle" proofs and "pi=3" proofs.

The publishers are not in the business of dissemination of wrong results. The readers also expect a publisher to have good peer review. Some journals just have better reputations than others in this matter.

Publishing is costly as is science in general. An author can always self-publish. No author is owed publishing, partly for economic reasons and partly because being published lends some of the journal's prestige to the author.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for the additional explanation!

If my idea came to fruition I would not expect the publisher to be the same as the one who rejected the article. It would need a separate publisher who specializes in fringe science, where the contributors may actually need to contribute to the cost of publication to augment advertisement income.

In this context, I'm confident an author would be circumspect before submitting his manuscript – because there is no prestige in been so published.

[unspun]

Rather than depend on case files (ancedotes) why not do some simple experiments. For a few bucks and a few hours time you could rig some good double-blind experiments to see if people can tell when they are being watched, or whether dogs know when their masters are coming home. A freshman Psych student could design and conduct the experiments.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/953666/posts

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the excerpt and link!

[SunkenCiv]

A Blast from the Past. Just adding to the catalog, not pinging.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Just updating the GGG info, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
·Dogpile · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·