Call for Papers

By -
0) We'll define this binary sequence in stages, punctuated by periods for clarity. (The periods are cosmetic; they are not part of the sequence.)

1) The first stage: 0.

2) The next stage: 1. So far: 0.1.

3) The next stage: a copy of all previous stages except the last: 0. So far: 0.1.0.

4) The next stage: same as for (3): 01. So far: 0.1.0.01.

5) Etc.: 0.1.0.01.010.01001.01001010.0100101001001. ...

6) Stripped of ".": 0100101001001010010100100101001001 ...

7) What, if anything, can you say about this sequence? This is not a "problem," I'd really like to know.

8) What, if any, reward in Heaven do you expect for your conscientious application to (7)?

Comments

  1. Anonymous11:31 AM

    wow this is beyond my knowledge of rocket science..

    huhu im confused..

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wabulon4:47 PM

    OK, well, here are a couple of observations to get you started:

    a) If you encode
    010 --> 0
    01 --> 1
    then the same sequence is recovered. Which means what??

    b) It's also not hard to see that the sequence consists only of '01' and '001' so encode
    01 --> 0
    001 --> 1
    then you get: 0101101011011... Which leads where??

    c) If, after (b), you then encode
    01 --> 0
    011 --> 1
    do you recover the same one??

    Reencodings like these are not the only approach...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous12:54 PM

    Does the sequence repeat?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wabulon7:10 PM

    Clearly, it is very repetitious. It absolutely never repeats.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more