Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Every single possible picture

Author
Message
Vast games
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Dec 2005
Location:
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 12:35
Link
This is more of a theory than something which is actualy possable. My idea is to make a program which would work through a sequence to generate every, single, possable, picture ever concevibaly possible on a 1024x768 screen and than save it onto a very, very, very large redundant array of indipendant disks (RAID). Of course, it would generate a whole load of junk which is zust multi couloued fuzz, a load of modern art, and a jail sentence for pumping out porn, but there must be ways arround that. I have done some calculations which you can view in the attached spreadsheet. The basics of what it says are this:

Provided that we allocate 1 MB for every image, we would need 3298354883328 GB (or 3 zettabytes if you narrow it down a bit)

There would be 786432 pixels on the screen. Each one can be any of 4294967296 different colours. This makes for 3377699720527870 different pictures. Multiply that number by 1024 kB each and you get the bit above.

My first calculations were to give each image 2 MB each just to be sure. But then I realised that I could cut the storage capacity required in half by giving all the images 1 MB because if an image only needs 200 kB, the extra space could be used to squese another image onto the disk.

I am planning to use apple Xserve servers and RAID systems. All now I deed to work out is how long the thing will take to run! Any comments would be great.

Anything is possible except for skiing through a revolving door.
It's kinda fun to do the impossible.

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Wiggett
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 31st May 2003
Location: Australia
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 14:37
Link
that number seems small, did you just multiply 786432 by 4294967296 to get the number, or did you actually come up with the whole possible combinations??

Syndicate remastered: Corporate persuasion through urban violence.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 14:44
Link
Wait wouldn't it be:

786432 ^ 4294967296

rather than:

786432 * 4294967296

Might have got that wrong.

I've often thought about it though. Would be cool. Somewhere in that mess there'd be a picture of Jennifer Lopez and Lee Bamber riding a surfboard naked together (in every possible type of weather and lighting conditions, and from every angle)

Back to top
Profile PM
David T
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: England
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 14:47 Edited at: 5th Feb 2006 14:53
Link
1024 * 768 = 786,423 pixels.

For each pixel, 16,777,216 different colours.

So (I think) the number images will be

(16,777,216) * (16,777,216) .... 786,423 times.

= 16,777,216 ^ 786,423 which equals.... MATH ERROR.

My calculator's not good enough


Edit - just done some calculations with logs

And I think the total number of images would be 10^(5,681,651).

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 14:53
Link
NO calculator is good enough.

That number is many many billion times the number of atoms in the known universe (even if the atoms were packed in as tightly as they would go)

Back to top
Profile PM
Josh
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Dec 2002
Location: Pompey, Great Britain =D
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 15:44
Link
Maybe start with something smaller, say 640 x 380? Or smaller still...

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Josh
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Dec 2002
Location: Pompey, Great Britain =D
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 15:51
Link
Hmm, thinking about that...

640 x 380 = 243,200 (number of pixels on screen)

243,200 x 16,777,216 = 4,080,218,931,200 (number of pixels if there was one of every colour)

Thats 3.711 TB.



I think thats right...

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dazzag
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Cyprus
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 16:16
Link
We did an AI course in uni once, and the lecturer reckoned there was many more possible unique games of chess than there have been seconds in the estimated life of the universe (lets go with billions of years this time, intelligent design fans - I know it's sunday and all....). And thats with 32 pieces, 2 players, and an 8x8 board. Think the "any picture ever" idea might be a bit difficult. I'm guessing a HD the size of the planet might be way too small.

Oh and the main problem with the above logic of X times Y times Colours falls down because doesn't consider the other pixels. Too hungover to remember statistics classes. Easier to think there is noway that all possible images of that size would only add up to 3.7TB. I mean thats nothing.

Cheers

I am 99% probably lying in bed right now... so don't blame me for crappy typing
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Josh
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Dec 2002
Location: Pompey, Great Britain =D
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 16:21
Link
Quote: "Oh and the main problem with the above logic of X times Y times Colours falls down because doesn't consider the other pixels."


There are 16,777,216 possible colours for every one of the 243,200 pixels on a 640*380 resolution. So you must just times them together...

A screen size of 800*600 makes 7.324 TB using this idea...

Maybe I'm doing the converting of bytes to TB wrong?

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Hawkeye
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Sep 2003
Location: SC, USA
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 16:22
Link
Quote: "Somewhere in that mess there'd be a picture of Jennifer Lopez and Lee Bamber riding a surfboard naked together (in every possible type of weather and lighting conditions, and from every angle)"

O.O


I am but mad north north-west; when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw - Hamlet, Hamlet
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
David T
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: England
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 16:24 Edited at: 5th Feb 2006 16:25
Link
Quote: "243,200 x 16,777,216 = 4,080,218,931,200 (number of pixels if there was one of every colour)"


No, fallout is right, it'd be 243,200 to the power of around 16 million.

Say we take the first pixel and call it P1. P1 can have around 16mil different colours.

Then, for ever colour P1 can take, P2 can take another 16 million. so our picture looks like:

P1 = colour 1, P2 = colour 1
P1 = colour 1, P2 = colour 2
...
P1 = colour 1, P2 = colour 16,777,000
all the way until we get
P1 = colour 16mil, P2 = colour 16mil.

Now for (640*480) pixels the total number of different images would be

(640*480) ^ number of colours for each pixel.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dazzag
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Cyprus
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 16:27
Link
Yeah, that sounds more like it. Think I need a tablet now.

Cheers

I am 99% probably lying in bed right now... so don't blame me for crappy typing
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 16:28
Link
Quote: "Maybe I'm doing the converting of bytes to TB wrong?"


No you've just never taken a statistics class.

Quote: "There are 16,777,216 possible colours for every one of the 243,200 pixels on a 640*380 resolution. So you must just times them together..."


So by your reconing, on a 3x3 screen with 2 colours, there would be 18 different combinations. Try it yourself in Paint, I think you'll find there are many many more.

Back to top
Profile PM
Josh
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Dec 2002
Location: Pompey, Great Britain =D
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 16:34
Link
That does make more sense.

So even a 10*10 will be too big for a calculator to handle.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
David T
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: England
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 16:37
Link
For a 10x10 picture there will be around 10^722 different images.

For a 640x480 screen there are around 10^2,219,434 different images.



Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Josh
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Dec 2002
Location: Pompey, Great Britain =D
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 16:39
Link
Why "10^722" if there are 16M colours?

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
David T
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: England
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 16:48
Link
Quote: "Why "10^722" if there are 16M colours?"


I don't get it? I took 16M colours into account...

16M ^ 100 is around 10^722 (I think, I had to calculate it with logarithms, but the number looks right).

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Josh
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Dec 2002
Location: Pompey, Great Britain =D
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 16:52 Edited at: 5th Feb 2006 16:53
Link
Oh right! I understand now. You didn't write it in Standard Index Form thats why I didn't understand it.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 16:56
Link
Er... yeah he did.

Back to top
Profile PM
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 16:57
Link
Somebody write the program, and we'll all do 1000000 pictures each, and maybe somebody will be lucky to get naked lopez.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Josh
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Dec 2002
Location: Pompey, Great Britain =D
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 16:57 Edited at: 5th Feb 2006 16:58
Link
Well I was taught differently.

Example:

3000 = 3 × 10(+3)

http://www.mathsnet.net/asa2/a4stanf.html

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 17:01
Link
Yeah exactly.

Standard form is a number >=1 and <10 multiplied by a power of ten.

He wrote:

10 ^ 722

Which is a power of ten therefore standard form.

Back to top
Profile PM
Josh
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Dec 2002
Location: Pompey, Great Britain =D
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 17:03
Link
Ok, I get it, you are correct ok? Is that what you want to be told?

Sorry for not recognising it.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
David T
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: England
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 17:10 Edited at: 5th Feb 2006 17:11
Link
Quote: "Ok, I get it, you are correct ok? Is that what you want to be told?

Sorry for not recognising it. "


It's okay, was just a bit confused - wasn't sure what you were questioning.

btw, sorry to nitpick, but I wasn't writing in standard form, just in powers of 10. I think my working was something like:



Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Oddmind
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jun 2004
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 17:47
Link
CIRCLE! I can find the circumfrence of a circle!

Yea when you do that give me a group picture of the TGC community and me with jimi hendrix whilst playing a banjo... An electric Banjo...

formerly KrazyJimmy
Back to top
Profile PM
Becky
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Jan 2006
Location:
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 18:39
Link
Your reducing the quality by using a smaller resolution, but still using 24 bit colour? The problem with the sheer scale is because of the colours more than it is the resolution.
Back to top
Profile PM
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 21:47
Link
Yeah, use 64 colours.


At least farting ferrets are better than stinky stoats.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Robin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Feb 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 22:44
Link
It is an interesting concept...Does anyone think in the future someone will do it?
Strange...there would be a picture of everything...like what i'm looking at now, from all angles, in all colour combinations, in all lighting combinations...etc. I think it's impossible to comprehend...like the size of the universe.
Robin

http://www.robinsgames.com | robin@robinsgames.com

w w w . r o b i n s g a m e s . c o m
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 23:35
Link
Heh, at 320x240, 64 colours, it will only take 314572800 images to map the universe... i think... erm... maybe not


At least farting ferrets are better than stinky stoats.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Robin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Feb 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 23:45
Link
ermm...I think it's higher than that
Is the human mind capable of picturing anything? I suppose you can only picture things you have seen before or which are made up of things you have seen before...but theoretically?...

Robin

http://www.robinsgames.com | robin@robinsgames.com

w w w . r o b i n s g a m e s . c o m
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Izzy545
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2004
Location:
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 23:48
Link
Maybe you should start small with a 16x16 picture...

Then you would have every smiley that could possibly be created!

Woo hoo!

Check out my books
Back to top
Profile PM
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 23:52
Link
Wow, you could see yourself getting murdered the next day!


At least farting ferrets are better than stinky stoats.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Peter H
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Feb 2004
Location: Witness Protection Program
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 00:26
Link
e-mail me the picture of me sitting on a throne after conquering the world.

"We make the worst games in the universe..."
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 00:36
Link
Maybe real life is running the program already? Every type of lifeform is being generated atom by atom. Just look how many different faces we have. Lots of monkeys in Heaven typing away on a life modeller......

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dave J
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Feb 2003
Location: Secret Military Pub, Down Under
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 00:56
Link
I'd imagine 99% of the pictures would be meaningless anyway, so finding the interesting ones would be very difficult.


"Computers are useless, they can only give you answers."
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Hawkeye
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Sep 2003
Location: SC, USA
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 01:04
Link
And would take a very long time to sort through everything - however, considering that moor's law has continued to hold true for quite a while now, this is the sort of thing that, if started today, might be completed by the time of, say, the matrix.


I am but mad north north-west; when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw - Hamlet, Hamlet
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dgamer
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Sep 2002
Location:
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 03:20
Link
Quote: "We did an AI course in uni once, and the lecturer reckoned there was many more possible unique games of chess than there have been seconds in the estimated life of the universe (lets go with billions of years this time, intelligent design fans - I know it's sunday and all....). And thats with 32 pieces, 2 players, and an 8x8 board. Think the "any picture ever" idea might be a bit difficult. I'm guessing a HD the size of the planet might be way too small. "


Well, there is an infinite amount of possible chess games, even with 32 pieces/8x8 board only. This is because chess games can go on for an unlimited amount of turns. Now, if he said all possible unique chess piece positions instead of all possible unique chess games, it would be a different story.


^ Clickity Click ^
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Oddmind
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jun 2004
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 03:34
Link
^^^ Smart kid.


You got me on that one.

formerly KrazyJimmy
Back to top
Profile PM
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 04:24 Edited at: 6th Feb 2006 05:13
Link
Sorry, said something strange...

David T, you are correct, except you need a minus 1 to get it right.


I have a powerful calulator and am running it... wonder when it will crash? Well, It didn't crash, but my computer feels a little too warm.

So I did it a little differently...


Merranvo, The Cool One
Noob Justice League, Cause We Have More Fun
Support Merra XJ9, cause the name is cooler.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 05:41
Link
Quote: "No, fallout is right, it'd be 243,200 to the power of around 16 million."


Correct.


640 x 380 = 243,200

243,200 ^ 16,777,216 = some big number


Deadly Night Assassins
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Izzy545
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2004
Location:
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 07:43
Link
Even a 16 x 16 picture with 2 colors (black and white) has 65,536 possible combinations :S

Check out my books
Back to top
Profile PM
Wiggett
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 31st May 2003
Location: Australia
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 07:55
Link
Quote: ""Somewhere in that mess there'd be a picture of Jennifer Lopez and Lee Bamber riding a surfboard naked together (in every possible type of weather and lighting conditions, and from every angle)""


there is already enough of those shots available, just google it.
The whole theory around this is that there is a finite number of colours a pixel can be. What about colours that are invisible to the human eye?? technically there is an infinite amount of possible colours

Syndicate remastered: Corporate persuasion through urban violence.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 10:53
Link
This is the same as the Theory of an Infinite Number Of Monkeys. If you take an infinite number of monkeys and give them a typewriter, they'll write all the great books.

Harry! Harry! We got somethin' at station 47!

To be or not to be, That is the schcrdlmph

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Robin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Feb 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 16:57
Link
Surely not...I mean an infinite number of monkeys could all theoretically type exactly the same thing...they wouldn't go through all the possible combinations of letters.
Also I don't think monkeys are that good on typewriters

Robin

http://www.robinsgames.com | robin@robinsgames.com

w w w . r o b i n s g a m e s . c o m
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 18:04
Link
Yeah monkeys have repeats, this doesn't.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Scraggle
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 18:08
Link
Quote: "I mean an infinite number of monkeys could all theoretically type exactly the same thing"


Not true ....
Perhaps you don't understand the concept of infinite numbers? There is no such thing as 'all' when talking about infinity.
With an infinate number of monkeys typing at an infinate number of typewriters there will, of course, be repeats (an infinate number of them) but they will also write some great literature.


Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 18:13
Link
One of the infinate monkeys dies every 40 years...and they never have time to breed...so they are going down...errr...

So how many are there now???

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Robin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Feb 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 18:15
Link
...Surely you can have an infinite number of monkeys typing exactly the same thing...there's nothing to say they'll type different things

http://www.robinsgames.com | robin@robinsgames.com

w w w . r o b i n s g a m e s . c o m
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Izzy545
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2004
Location:
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 18:19
Link
Quote: "...Surely you can have an infinite number of monkeys typing exactly the same thing...there's nothing to say they'll type different things"


Like Scraggle said, you must not understand infinite numbers...

There's an infinite number of them. There will be an infinite number that type the same thing, and an infinite number of them that write great works of literature. By that I mean they will write every last book on earth and every last book that will be written... It's infinity after all!

This of course assumes that they have standard typewriters and infinite paper and infinite ink and infinite time.

Check out my books
Back to top
Profile PM
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 18:26
Link
So, what DBPro code would we need?


At least farting ferrets are better than stinky stoats.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-16 18:28:37
Your offset time is: 2024-11-16 18:28:37