[Doctor Stochastic]

You're missing the point of the rules I posted. The sequence is not random. The sequence does generate every possible sequence of bits. This has been know since: Champernowne, D. G., J. London Math. Soc. 8, 254-260, 1933.

Of course it generates Shakespeare with one typo, with two typos, three typos, etc.

[gore3000]

Of course it generates Shakespeare with one typo, with two typos, three typos, etc.

Which in the case of biology is a very big problem since 'typos' would be deadly.

I also think that much of the discussion of rules has a problem which is when it comes to real life implementation and why I disagree that just a few simple rules can be the source of everything we see. The rules seem to be somewhat like a plan for a house. Describing the plan is not the same as building the house. Many things we see follow different rules. To transform the 0/1's of a computer to a graphic representation takes many different rules (and they differ according to the graphic card being used!). To transform a picture into a screen representation requires one set of rules, another to put it on paper. The same can be said with life. The DNA code itself while a primary building block of life, is not all there is to it. You have to assemble the DNA molecules and the rest of the parts of a living thing and that will take even more rules.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

Indeed, the sequence is not random, therefore I strongly disagree with this statement:

"The sequence does generate every possible sequence of bits."

If that were true, Chaitin's Omega would be there as well.

For Lurkers, here is the Champernowne’s binary constant concatenated to base 10:

Champernowne’s Constant

Champernowne's constant 0.1234567891011... is the number obtained by concatenating the positive integers and interpreting them as decimal digits to the right of a decimal point. It is normal in base 10 (Champernowne 1933, Bailey and Crandall 2003). Mahler (1961) showed it to also be transcendental. ..

The "binary" Champernowne constant is obtained by concatenating the binary representations of the integers

C₂=0.(1)(10)(11)(100)(101)(110)(111)…
=0.86224012586805…

You said:

Of course it generates Shakespeare with one typo, with two typos, three typos, etc.

Because more character representations of 8 bit ascii values 0-255 are unreadable than not, I continue to assert the Champernowne binary constant cannot be successfully concatenated to a readable character representation of Shakespeare.