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
Dodic
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Nov 2005
Location: SNM (Serbia&Montenegro)
Posted: 8th Feb 2006 00:26
Well , as i said , it wasn`t discovered as-in what we call math today , but the bases of math are simple logic found in nature..

But we didn`t found all that complex calculations formula and so.. in nature i`m afraid..

--Dodic--
Don`t try to SEE the future , try to MAKE the future the way you like it.
---------
Peter H
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Feb 2004
Location: Witness Protection Program
Posted: 8th Feb 2006 01:35 Edited at: 8th Feb 2006 01:35
Quote: "and moves are not alowed to be repeated for the sake of delaying the game. "

indeed, there is a rule in teh official chess rules somewhere about repeating the same series of moves a certain number of times (i think it was 5 times) and that if you do so then you automatically forfeit the game

Quote: " Is Maths discovered or invented?"

heh, i'd say that some things (like Pi and e) are built in to nature... and we discovered them... but we invented how to manipulate them...

either that or we're really a lot dumber then we think we are and we just discovered all math...

"We make the worst games in the universe..."
Manticore Night
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Oct 2003
Location: Ouinnipeg
Posted: 8th Feb 2006 02:20
I think we dicovered how to manipulate them, if you have one apple, then get another one you now have 2 apples(addition). If you have 2 apples and take one away you know have 1(subtraction). Multiplication can be seen in reproduction of cells. Division can be seen in animals such as dividing into groups. There's proof.

[center]It's amazing how much TV has raised us. (Bart Simpson)

He's back! With 20% less intelligence!
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 8th Feb 2006 02:30
The only infinate thing is the universe. It not doing much typing at the moment. It just shudders a bit.

Is the universe infinite? I think that it is finite, extreamly finite. And that all those other galaxys... are just paintings on the wall of the universe.

Merranvo, The Cool One
Noob Justice League, Cause We Have More Fun
Support Merra XJ9, cause the name is cooler.
re faze
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Sep 2004
Location: The shores of hell.
Posted: 8th Feb 2006 03:19
you can reduce the number of iterations by including only important colors, like 24 bit color except with multiples of 8 so there are only 32 possibilities for each component, and still retain quality.

Undercover Steve
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, Little Canada(Washington)
Posted: 8th Feb 2006 03:50
Well because we would have to had made math possible in machines somehow, unless binary could work with math that way, I would say: Discovered.

I have been re assigned. New name, new mission. Star Fleet - 5%
Robin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Feb 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 8th Feb 2006 08:36 Edited at: 8th Feb 2006 08:36
Quote: "Is the universe infinite? I think that it is finite, extreamly finite. And that all those other galaxys... are just paintings on the wall of the universe."


Isn't the universe still expanding...how can something infintite be getting bigger?

Isn't time infinite too? when did it start, and what was before it, when will is finish, and what will be after it?

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
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 8th Feb 2006 10:02
Quote: "Isn't the universe still expanding...how can something infintite be getting bigger? "


The matter in the universe, like atoms, are moving further, and further through the already infinate universe. The universe is made from just invisible stuff. Once you realise that nothing is actually something, there is something everywhere, then you can understand how this dense nothing can go on forever.

geecee3
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2004
Location: edinburgh.scotland.
Posted: 8th Feb 2006 13:54
sorry, but i like to think the universe is only as big as it is at this exact point in time. it will be bigger in an hour, Even Bigger in a day. Space is the viod that the universe is 'expanding into'. if the universe becomes infinitley big (theoretically) then there would be an infinite space between the atoms that make up matter, in effect the distance between matter would become so great, it would leave the impression that the universe actually no longer exists. But if you could travel 'infinitley fast' then you would exist everywhere in the universe at the same time, in effect becoming an infinite inertial mass that's heavier than all the rest of the universe put together, but because you exist at all points in space at the same time you would have no noticable gravitational infuence. WHY?? because the gravity you possess would exist evenly across infinity, effectivley cancelling itself out.
Incidently, certain math principles fall to bits when you go small, take an exploding star that collapses under its own weight, gaining what is referred to as infinite density. the standard laws of 5 dimensional spacetime and math fall to bits at infinite density. Matter under infinite collapse never stops collapsing, it's crashing into an infinitley small space at close to the speed of light, but going nowhere fast. If the entire mass of the universe was to go into infinite collapse, you would have the entire finite mass if the universe crammed into an infinitley small space.

Infinity will screw with your head badly if you attempt to quantify or mentally visualise it.

So with that, i'm off to take another handfull of happy tablets to preserve what sanity i have left. LOL.

Ohd Chinese Ploverb say : Wise Eskimo, not eat yerrow snow.
Killswitch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 8th Feb 2006 19:53
You don't nessacarily have to generate all of the pictures, of course this'd defeat the object of trying to get every picture ever, BUT at least you'd get the most interesting ones.

For example you could skip over pictures that are poinltess (i.e. every pixel is one colour, or most are one colour, or there's a deffinate pattern). That'd knock off a fair few - but many would still be essentially random.

~Heed my word hobags: Jism~
PowerSoft
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Oct 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 8th Feb 2006 21:31
Quote: "indeed, there is a rule in teh official chess rules somewhere about repeating the same series of moves a certain number of times (i think it was 5 times) and that if you do so then you automatically forfeit the game "


3 actually ....use to play Chess for my County...Lincolnshire.

Sephnroth
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Oct 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 8th Feb 2006 21:41
theres a major flaw in the infinate monkey theory.

Most people arnt grasping it because the idea of a monkey randomly typing even one sensical word is quite a big one.

but there is, a very tiny improbable chance, that a monkey could accidently hit a ton of a keys in a row so many times as to form a book.

a 1 in 100 chance isnt very good odds for say a lottery ticket or whatever, but if you say make an astroids game which has a 1/100 chance of spawning an astroid you will find your screen quite full of asteroids due to the sheer amount of times per second that chance is being calculated.

same with monkeys. if that tiny tiny chance is calculated once per key press for INFINATY then eventually it should crop up.

however that requires infinate time = infinate universe and doesnt allow for the improbable but possiable (at least oyu cant proove otherwise, even if i cant proove it either) chance that the universe will ultimatly end. Causing a paradox and the end of our monkeys. It could happen before they manage to write a good book :x

I really like this picture idea though! making every emoticon known to man then trademarking all the decent ones sounds like quite a plan xD

Scraggle
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posted: 8th Feb 2006 22:06 Edited at: 8th Feb 2006 22:07
Sephnroth ... you are mistaken.

If there were INFINTE monkeys typing at INFINITE typewriters then everything that could ever possibly be written would be written instantly.

So, to write a masterpiece of literature would only take as long as it would take the monkey to write it. In-fact every possible piece of literature would also be completed alongside this one ... all you have to do is find the correct monkey.


Robin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Feb 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 8th Feb 2006 22:14 Edited at: 8th Feb 2006 22:17
If there were an infinite number of monkeys, and the chances of a monkey hiting the keys randommly to type a great novel is near enough 1/infinity, then on the 'first go' wouldn't one of the monkeys have done it?

But then you can also say if an infinite number of babies screamed, one of them would scream to the tune of, say, God save the queen...if you have an infinite number of anything, anything is possible....

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

w w w . r o b i n s g a m e s . c o m
re faze
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Sep 2004
Location: The shores of hell.
Posted: 8th Feb 2006 22:21
Quote: "1 in 100 chance isnt very good odds for say a lottery ticket or whatever"

if i pointed a gun at you and said that there is a 1/100 chance that it will fire would you stand in front of it?

Scraggle
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posted: 8th Feb 2006 23:10
Quote: "If there were an infinite number of monkeys, and the chances of a monkey hiting the keys randommly to type a great novel is near enough 1/infinity, then on the 'first go' wouldn't one of the monkeys have done it?
"

Almost what I said. The difference being ... On the 'first go' an infinte number of monkeys would have done it.


Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 8th Feb 2006 23:54
Quote: "If there were INFINTE monkeys typing at INFINITE typewriters then everything that could ever possibly be written would be written instantly."


Can I interject? It wouldn't be instant, as no human (or monkey) can type even a bookful of random characters in an instant. If there were an infinite amount of monkeys and typewriters (or word processors) then to get To Kill a Mockingbird out of that would require the same amount of time it would take a monkey to write the booksize amount of random characters.

Quote: "But then you can also say if an infinite number of babies screamed, one of them would scream to the tune of, say, God save the queen..."


Haha! I actually laughed out loud at that

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Feb 2006 00:36
If there were an infinate number of monkeys, and an infinate number of aliens in the universe with an infinate number of languages, would every monkey write a best selling novel?

Scraggle
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posted: 9th Feb 2006 01:03
Quote: "Can I interject? It wouldn't be instant,"


Perhaps you should have gone on to read the rest of what I wrote ...
Quote: "So, to write a masterpiece of literature would only take as long as it would take the monkey to write it"

Sephnroth seemed to think that it would take an infinite amount of time to write a book. When I said 'Instantly' I meant the instant that the monkey/typewriter thing started the book would be started.


Sephnroth
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Oct 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 9th Feb 2006 01:27
it wouldnt take an infinate amount of time to write it, I dont know how i managed to put that across x_X It would have to be a very long book if that was correct. Infinatly long infact.

Theres a small chance the first monkey could do it on the first try, but i doubt it. It may take an infinate amount of monkeys a year.

Well i suppose not if there is truely an infinate amount of monkeys as every single monkey possiably imaginable would all start typing at the same time so its not a chase of 1 chance counted to infinatly, its i to i as it were *shrugs*

but I still maintain that in the universe nessiary for the hypothetical monkeys and typewriters to exist there is still the chance of the end of the world happening somewhere along the point of infinantly. Although that depends, can an infinate amount of monkeys fill an infinate amount of space? Because if they exist in an infinate universe then somewhere in that infinate space will be the matter combination which is going to end up ending it all

Waste of bloody good litrature really.

Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 9th Feb 2006 03:22
Quote: "It may take an infinate amount of monkeys a year."



Tempest - P2P UDP Multiplayer Plugin - 70%
Milkman
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Nov 2005
Location: United States
Posted: 9th Feb 2006 03:59
there would be:

images for a resolution of 512*512 with only 64 colors!

formerly xMik
Oneka
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2004
Location: Hampton,VA
Posted: 9th Feb 2006 04:04
WELL....we would not only have to have some super super dooper computer to make all those in our lifetime, but we would need some super dooper AI to decipher which ones are crap and which ones we would want to see...I say by the year 2050 we should be close to something like that but of course by then I will be old....


Making better games everday!
Oh yeah and just so you know its Oh-nek-a not One-ka!
Robin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Feb 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 9th Feb 2006 08:26
Or you could have a load of people employed to sit there looking at the pictures being produced and choosing whether they're worth keeping or not

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

w w w . r o b i n s g a m e s . c o m
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Feb 2006 09:37
Neural networks can distinguish the face of a man, from the face of a woman even if you put a beard on the woman. They actually score higher than humans. I think that a neural network could look for the good pictures out of the garbage. A neural network could probably run the program better as well by just drawing the good pictures.

Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 9th Feb 2006 14:06
It'd probably be more practical to limit this, like say a 32x32 icon image using a standard 16 colour pallete. Then your talking...

1024 pixels to power of 16, or 302,231,454,903,657,293,676,544 different 16 colour icons. It's been a long day though, that's probably wrong - if it's right then we should stay away from this sorta maths, it's scaring me. I wonder what Lopez's butt would look like on a Win95 icon .


Van-B

Put away, those fiery biscuits!
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 9th Feb 2006 18:22
It is impossible to have a computer determine whether an image is "interesting", as interesting is such a subjective term. One may find a bunch of random stripes on a painting interesting, while others will find they're just random stripes.

Like Pincho said, you'd need software to determine things like faces and other objects (cars, trees, bodies, etc.). That complexity is something that the NSA would be implementing, so no I don't see that coming to DBP anytime soon

Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 9th Feb 2006 19:05
Quote: "
1024 pixels to power of 16"

You mean 16 colours to the power of 1024 pixels.

Tempest - P2P UDP Multiplayer Plugin - 70%
Teh Go0rfmeister
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 9th Feb 2006 21:06
wow this sounds like quite an interesting project, and to think that out of all these pictures (assuming you do pick every single possible combination),theres gonna be a high population of pictures that actually resemble things, even photos of you :/

Killswitch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 9th Feb 2006 21:47
There will also be a load of incriminating ones...You'd see everyone in the world commiting murders on everyone else in the world. You'd also see a picture of anyone that has, does or will exist!

That's messed up.

~Heed my word hobags: Jism~
geecee3
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2004
Location: edinburgh.scotland.
Posted: 9th Feb 2006 21:53 Edited at: 9th Feb 2006 21:58
you'll also incurr copyright wrath when you generate every frame of every movie ever made, and TV show , and work of art, and shematic, and book, because text is made out of pixels. I would not like to be the creator of this program when the lawsuits start flying around.

that's very messed up.

then the military will have your ass for publishing images of all the stuff they don't want you to see. then religeous nutters trying to kill you because of the connitations in some of the images you have generated.

Ohd Chinese Ploverb say : Wise Eskimo, not eat yerrow snow.
Killswitch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 9th Feb 2006 21:59
This sounds like the best idea for a program, ever. You'd have Adobe out of buissness cause no one would need photoshop again!

The implications are massive - even if the program is certinaly too impractical to be run any time soon.

~Heed my word hobags: Jism~
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 9th Feb 2006 22:51
SEPP - Search For Every Picture
Like SETA, but you see more than spam being sent around Alpha Centuri


At least farting ferrets are better than stinky stoats.
Killswitch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 10th Feb 2006 00:42
We'd get loads of screenies of the Windows source code as well - how good is that?

Sorry, I'm not really adding anything useful to this thread.

~Heed my word hobags: Jism~
Milkman
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Nov 2005
Location: United States
Posted: 10th Feb 2006 02:19 Edited at: 10th Feb 2006 02:33
here's an alpha version...



it is kind of slow... using memblocks would probably be a heck of a lot more efficient. as soon as i learn the format of bitmap files i'll use memblocks for it.

exe is attached if you don't want to compile it

formerly xMik

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Izzy545
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2004
Location:
Posted: 10th Feb 2006 02:57
I ran it for just a minute or so and it created 6718 pictures, all are only about 300 bytes apiece.

So say on a fast computer(mine sucks) it could probably do around 10,000 a minute at this size? That's 600,000 an hour... 6,000,000 in 10 hours, 60,000,000 in 100 hours, 6,000,000,000 in 10000 hours...

It'd probably take us a few years to get every possible 8x8 picture

I don't have DBPro, but if you happen to make a black and white version spanning maybe 32x32 pixels in a windowed version, I'd be interested in running it for a long while and seeing what it produces.

Izzy545
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2004
Location:
Posted: 10th Feb 2006 03:46
Well, I let it run for half an hour... And now I have a folder full of 51,000 files that never got past the first row of pixels on the left side

And it doesn't want to be deleted. Or even viewed anymore.

DarkBasic Pro Guy
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jun 2004
Location: Broomfield, Colorado
Posted: 10th Feb 2006 04:22
ran it for about 5 minutes and got more than 18,000 images...

Milkman
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Nov 2005
Location: United States
Posted: 10th Feb 2006 04:26
@Izzy545:
delete them from the command prompt with "del *.bmp"
it's a hell of a lot faster than highlighting them all and deleting

formerly xMik
geecee3
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2004
Location: edinburgh.scotland.
Posted: 10th Feb 2006 04:45 Edited at: 10th Feb 2006 05:02
lol, you'd have to generate 16.7 million images just to cover the first pixel in all its available colours. how much time do you have?

and you'd end up with 1068.8 million images that contained just a single pixel of colour on a uniform background. Generating that at a rate of 1 million images per hour would take about 152.5 days. and youd end up with around 191.11Gb of rubbish.

Ohd Chinese Ploverb say : Wise Eskimo, not eat yerrow snow.
Flindiana Jones
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Nov 2004
Location: Bosnian Power
Posted: 10th Feb 2006 04:45
I think I'll run this over night as I sleep...see what happens...

Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 10th Feb 2006 05:13
In a black and white 8x8 image there are 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 different combinations.

Tempest - P2P UDP Multiplayer Plugin - 70%
Gil Galvanti
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Dec 2004
Location: Texas, United States
Posted: 10th Feb 2006 05:42
all i have to say is, have fun looking through those countless pictures for something that actually looks like something .

Pirates of Port Royale:
http://www.popr.gwgaming.net (Temporarily Disabled, We Apologize for the Inconvenience)
Live the life of your dreams.
Izzy545
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2004
Location:
Posted: 10th Feb 2006 06:11
Holy crap Benjamin, you're right...

It doesn't seem like there's all that many possibilities with two colors and 64 pixels... I'll be darned.

But then you have to think. That's every singe 8x8 black and white picture that could ever possibly be created. There'd be smilies, swords, chickens, every letter in every language... Of course it would all be real tiny because it's only 8x8!

Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 10th Feb 2006 09:56
An image of 4x8 pixels using two colours is easy to do, as you just increment an integer value up to its limit, and check its bits.



Tempest - P2P UDP Multiplayer Plugin - 70%
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 10th Feb 2006 15:06
You don't get any interesting pictures though.

Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 10th Feb 2006 15:11
No, you don't.. well actually if you sit there for hours... you still get nothing interesting.

Tempest - P2P UDP Multiplayer Plugin - 70%
re faze
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Sep 2004
Location: The shores of hell.
Posted: 12th Feb 2006 08:12
might be slightly better if we use a compressed image format like .jpg and just make the header and append random bytes. would be much faster.

Killswitch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 12th Feb 2006 13:05
Like I said before you could cut out loads and loads of 'boring' pictures just by implimenting a few checks:

1) No pictures where every pixel is the same colour
2) No pictures where most (say 75%+, maybe even 60%+) pixels are the same colour
3) No pictures where deffinate (but 'boring') patterns exist (i.e. diagonal lines)

Then you'd be left with loads of random dots but should get some interesting ones as well.

~Heed my word hobags: Jism~
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 12th Feb 2006 15:07
Any area with a pixel with pixels surrounding it with RGB values under 10% out?


At least farting ferrets are better than stinky stoats.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-16 17:40:42
Your offset time is: 2024-11-16 17:40:42