Thursday, February 16, 2012

Visualizing the Binary Number System

Visualizing the Binary Number System

L. Edgar Otto 02-16-12

The way we use the binary code is that which determines what sorts of higher level programs we learn and become familiar with in our view of how numbers work. So as a product the behavior of the user is the desired imprinting of style on the user so as to make this that which is marketable.
There is little difference in the intrinsic intelligibility of these grounding codes insofar as usage goes or that vague property we project on the machine as intelligence.

This is possible mainly because we only deal with the surface or factors of the code and what permutations and patterns are within the factors such that the volume or area, the quasic plane, can intelligibly contain the product. For a fundamental view this way to see numbers can be a difficult and subtle transition from our real and virtual experience.

The partitioning of areas in a plane has the same logical decisions to make as to the depth and utility of a program design. These decisions can be a style and thus a competition for those who would say, start a count from zero or one, as in our own mental reckoning in context. Or it can be a choice between natural multiplication table or quasic table ordering beyond the early properties of number theory as in the quadratic reciprocity. To make the system profitable as the market shares increase it will pay to keep some of the grounding code as secret and to discourage the general users from getting to wise as to the grounding logic.

This, of course, drives the economics for to make the internet and the hardware, if not the higher level product, profitable. But economics has no necessary concept of ownership or meaning nor any laws of use beyond the mainstream of recognizing contracts in a free market struggle for the marketplace. As the wisdom is accessible to everyone who can crack it, we can expect those who like to solve such problems or some who use it for nefarious purposes to try to work their tactics within the ground codes.

If we imagine a certain wall against such probing as being solved by quantum computation, other than the speed to which, and the complexity of the program is a matter of time to decode as usual, then such synthetic and global forms in the vagueness will not work or are already in principle with us if we have an understanding of non-necessary logic systems. These themselves are open to new possibilities.

To beat the mechanical chess game, and one can if they are wise to the level of the strategy and tactics involved, it actually helps to imagine at first the opponent is a sentient entity with consciousness in its decisions- decisions of which a human can force the machine to not be able to evaluate the choices as to which is the better path in the short and long run. The machine too is programmed as if it too will be vulnerable to the wider span of ignorance, without that being a measure of its awareness, intrinsically and not as a result of human programming.

Can we distinguish then, even objectively, what is emotional in a machine as seen from the game, for we can feel the machine reacts irrationally at times caught between decisions wherein in a very small and singularity sense it does seem to act as if it made an original and fundamental decision? It is not clear that such intrinsic programming of binary, and n-nary patterns, if taught a subjective human or an exacting objective machine will result in a machine with emotions and intelligence, even consciousness, any more than what if the human also in the game strive to play it.

In general, what is the conclusions we should make if we have a chess master with the help of a supercomputer playing a supercomputer with the help of several chess masters? The myth of wisdom, of intelligence a person while essential to win games in general and has its influences, self-worth etc...the existential value of victory for a game or the depression that follows a defeat, or the ennui of a draw which itself can be the addiction long after the game no longer contains emotional thrills is on this alternative level of at least creative philosophic and here quasic reasoning.

It is not clear we can distinguish between the machine and subjective aspects of a system, especially a physics system, as to at least if machines can achieve a mental state or if for all practical purposes a human mind is aware it but a machine.

Many patterns, graphs an such, help us to visualize things while they have the same underlying logic and mathematics. But one problem solved does not necessarily make all the other problems solved, nor does a sum of infinite path integrals as a concept of the quantum theory. In this sense we ask about the quasic quasi-finite divisions of space or time and other continuous things as quasically intelligible.

Working off-line has shown me how one can take parts of programs from intermediate levels of some style of formatting, design, and put them together in logical ways, it is intensive for the hands and eyes but not as grueling as working pixel by pixel although I can precisely find them intelligibly and place things on a plane at least in relative proportions if I desire. I can also see why the designers of systems chose things the way they did and if I desire choose differently if possible.

From the simple patterns of drawing even while missing the effects of an advanced photo programming package - well, this is after all a primitive art close to the logic of it all, I can imagine for example that when we extend things as in the doubling of an area or a space this too contains at least the laws that connect things or come close to beyond that world of confusion between the quaternions and octonions to which our current physics of particles seems to be a matter of debate. I also have more respect for the properties of aliasing, cosines, gif (which I dislike in the translation with other extensions) when it comes to the all too familiar base and problems with ten, as in ten natural dimensions. For particles if we make a supercomputer for the purpose of simulation of the laws of how they work one must wonder if the programming to do so has to be based on the laws of such particles.

By the way, I have lately begun to kick ass with the on line chess game.

* * * * *

No comments:

Post a Comment