• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Physicist discovers computer code in equations

Funny. "Computer codes" in an arbitrary setup where in my computer language, 11001 is "a" and in your version, 11001 is "j"?

Here's the answer to the God question: 111001010110001, as long as you use the right compiler to spit it out.

This is Bible Code for mathematicians and points out something about how the equations work (the parity and error correcting duality) but not much about anything external to the math. The question they didn't ask him was, "What do you think the significance of this is?"

I fear that "information" is becoming the latest place to hang our mysticism hats. We will miss religion when it finally dies off. We will miss the easy target.
 
Most of it is beyond my ability to parse (which could mean it is really complicated, really nonsensical or a combination of those) but the paper linked by ctamblyn clearly refers to non executable encodings of numbers - sequences effectively, not codes. Gray codes or Hamming codes for instance.
Finding links between such mathematical objects would not be terribly surprising but could be interesting - not in the ways the video suggests though.
 
edd said:
Most of it is beyond my ability to parse (which could mean it is really complicated, really nonsensical or a combination of those) but the paper linked by ctamblyn clearly refers to non executable encodings of numbers - sequences effectively, not codes. Gray codes or Hamming codes for instance.
Finding links between such mathematical objects would not be terribly surprising but could be interesting - not in the ways the video suggests though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he's talking codes in the Shannon sense, not in the "binary that makes my computer function" sense.
 
It's easy to feel like a genius when you discover

G=niµs
 
Interesting but not flabbergasting. We get things that look very much like error-correcting codes when the mathematics overspecifies a system in some way. We get it in something as simple as models for the rotation group, so it isn't terribly surprising that we should find them in supersymmetry groups.

ETA: Just remembered that GR is overspecified.
 
Last edited:
ddt said:
GOTO is so passé. The ultimate solution in flow control was proposed in 1973 by R. Lawrence Clark. Oh, and there's a Perl module implementing it. :D
Click to expand...

Oh dear this thread has exceeded my nerd level.....

img1007.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom