Re: Pitman CSI Formula - for all values of X

On 2007-07-23, sheldongb@xxxxxxx <sheldongb@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 23, 12:44 pm, snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 23, 2:35 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.





0catch.com> wrote:
On Jul 22, 11:56 am, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Ok, as promised, here is the formula for those sequences with more
than 2 possible characters per position:

CSI: X^n - (( log(base2)(X^n)! / (log(base 2)(X^n) - hd)! * hd!)

X = number of possible characters per position
n = size of the sequence
hd = Hamming Distance

And yes, I have tried it out and it does seem to work quite well.

"The total number of sequences with a HD of 1..." is meaningless. Hamming
Distance is a binary operation. It requires two arguments.

I'm not sure what you are saying here - It doesn't make any sense to
me. The total number of strings with HD of 1 relative to the chosen
reference string can indeed be calculated in an absolute manner - as
can the number of strings with all other Hamming distances.

Hamming Distance is a metric between *two strings*. It is not defined for a
single string. It is only defined for two strings.

Exactly. Now, consider that the single reference string occupies a
specific sequence space, which contains it as well as all of the other
possible sequences of the same size. Coming up with a formula for the
odds of matching a sequence with the reference sequence one has to
consider how many of all the possible sequences in sequence space are
within a particular Hamming Distance (HD) of the reference string.
For example, there are far fewer possible strings in sequence space
that are within HD1 of the reference string as compared to HD2. That
is why it is much harder for a random process to produce a string with
HD of 1 relative to a string with HD of 2.

Supposing that the second argument is an arbitrarily selected string, SO
WHAT about the distribution of strings with various Hamming Distances
from that reference? Yes, it is trivial to demonstrate.

That's right - it is trivial to demonstrate this number. The "so
what" is in the fact that the number of possible strings with a very
small HD relative to the chosen reference string are small relative to
those with larger HD (max at the average HD). This fact is what makes
the detection of strings with small HD equivalent to the detection of
non-random production. And, the fact that this pattern becomes more
and more accentuated with increasing string size provides more and
more confidence in the hypothesis of non-randomness for matches with
very low or very high HDs.

Your next step: "This fact is what makes the detection of strings with small
HD equivalent to the detection of non-random production." has not been
demonstrated.

Yes - it has. This is in fact why SETI scientist would in fact hail a
perfect match to the first 100 digits of pi repeated over and over
again a few hundred times evidence, not only of non-random production,
but of ID.

< snip rest >

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

when are you going to apply this function to the bit strings in my
"CSI Challenge" thread?

You've been asked repeatedly to provide the source of your "radio
signal", and you've ignored all attempts to get you to see the
reason.

That is because there is no actual reason. Nothing in Sean's attempt
to specify his methodology for determining CSI of strings claims that
they need to know anything about the origin of the strings in question.

Now you claim your examples are "bit strings". Radio signals are not
bit strings. They can be represented as bit strings, but in certain
formats.

Indeed. Given that Sean's methodology gives different answers depending
upon the exact encoding that you choose to use, doesn't that imply that
the methodology itself is tremendously flawed?

Lacking any input from you other than "you can choose any modulation
scheme you wish", and assuming that these were genuine signals, I
could only conclude that both your strings represent narrowband
"carrier" wave, either modulated by frequency or amplitude,
represented by either "0" or "1".

None of this seems to be relevent to applying Sean's methodology.

Yet reviewing your original thread "CSI Challenge", I find:

"if i publish them now, a few months down the line when i want to
post
this type of thing again to make the creationists scatter like
cockroaches in the light ill have to make up new data and new ways to
create it. and i think i might be too lazy for that."

This suggests that your examples are not binary representations of
radio signals, but made up 0s and 1s.

Again, none of this seems to be relevent to applying Sean's methodology.

And as I explained to you before, lacking any input from you as to the
source of your examples, one could only conclude that both were
intelligently designed, since both showed up on my computer screen,
and known to be not naturally produced.

I don't know why you would conclude that. Seems rather odd to me.

And then again in the same original thread:

"however, you are correct that signal B is the designed one. the
encoding scheme is rather simple. it converts a text message into the
binary ASCII equivalent, and then inserts 4 random binary digits in
between each set of 3 legitimate digits. so to decode, you just grab
3
bits, discard 4, grab 3, discard 4, etc.. then convert to ASCII. "

No doubt now that I was right, that they were both intelligently
designed by you. And that you have been deceptive by insisting in
several subsequent posts that your examples were "radio signals", not
to mention the original post in that original thread. You converted a
text message into ASCII, removed the sequence spacing, and claimed
they were radio signals.

Isn't that a deception, Snex? Explain why it isn't. And if you can't,
explain why you would expect anyone to be able to infer intelligent
design from your examples.

It might be, if Sean's methodology actually claimed to require radio signals
to work. It doesn't of course, and it is nothing but obfuscation to wander
off arguing that it matters.

I'd like you to explain your claim about pi as well, since you accused
me of being ignorant of math. You ignored a challenge to that as well.

Must have missed that one. You are ignorant about so many topics though,
it would hardly surprise me to find out that you are ignorant about math
as well.

Mark

.

Relevant Pages

  • Pitman CSI Formula - for all values of X
    ... The total number of strings with HD of 1 relative to the chosen ... reference string can indeed be calculated in an absolute manner - as ... Hamming Distance is a metric between *two strings*. ... specific sequence space, which contains it as well as all of the other ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: .99999... still=/= 1
    ... > placeholders in the infinite long area *N were already occupied. ... decimal digit strings. ... sequence, and it is understood that any other sequence that happens to ... To describe a member of *N, for example, I can ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Pitman CSI Formula - for all values of X
    ... The total number of strings with HD of 1 relative to the chosen ... specific sequence space, which contains it as well as all of the other ... within a particular Hamming Distance of the reference string. ... But patterns don't necessarily imply deliberate design, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Pitman CSI Formula - for all values of X
    ... The total number of strings with HD of 1 relative to the chosen ... specific sequence space, which contains it as well as all of the other ... within a particular Hamming Distance of the reference string. ... radio signals, but made up 0s and 1s. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Pitman CSI Formula - for all values of X
    ... The total number of strings with HD of 1 relative to the chosen ... specific sequence space, which contains it as well as all of the other ... within a particular Hamming Distance of the reference string. ... radio signals, but made up 0s and 1s. ...
    (talk.origins)