This is pretty mind blowing..

Lightnix · 27 May 2011 at 20:03

Liampope said:
So all you have to do if you want to see a picture of any hot girl you can think of naked is get a computer to generate the images and have a look through them. You'd need a big HDD though, and it may take a while

Also you'd probably get a lot of naked Gordon Brown riding a mushroom before you get to anything good.

PermaBanned · 27 May 2011 at 20:05

Energize said:
It's common knowledge that if you generate random data you will create videos/pictures of well, pretty much everything possible.

Monkeys, typewriters, Shakespeare?

Psycho Sonny · 27 May 2011 at 20:06

Liampope said:
It's just a calculation of the total number of possible 640x480 256 colour images. Look at it this way...

256 possible colours for any pixel.

So for a 1 pixel image size there are 256 possible images, which is 256^1.

For a 2 pixel image size there are 256x256 possible images, which is 256^2.

For a 3 pixel image size there are 256x256x256 possible images, which is 256^3.

And so on until for a 307200 image size (640x480) there are 256x256x...repeat 307200 times, which is 256^307200.

Simples.

So all you have to do if you want to see a picture of any hot girl you can think of naked is get a computer to generate the images and have a look through them. You'd need a big HDD though, and it may take a while

surely if you digitised a picture into 1 pixel, then it would simply just become 1 colour? and not a picture at all.

256 possible images in 1 pixel does not mean you can actually show 256 images at once, you can still only show 1 image at a time. therefore this whole thought process is nonsense.

antijoke · 27 May 2011 at 20:13

I've had better.

Liampope · 27 May 2011 at 20:16

Psycho Sonny said:
surely if you digitised a picture into 1 pixel, then it would simply just become 1 colour? and not a picture at all.

256 possible images in 1 pixel does not mean you can actually show 256 images at once, you can still only show 1 image at a time. therefore this whole thought process is nonsense.

I dont see your point - who said anything about showing multiple images simultaneously. Of course a 1 pixel image is just a colour - I'm not suggesting otherwise - but the proposed 256 colour 640x480 image is sufficient to depict a human face recognisably, agree? Therefore a set of all possible 256 colour 640x480 images contains a recognisable picture of every human that ever was or could be. 256^307200 is the number of possible 256 colour 640x480 images. As an aside, these pictures of all humans would be a vanishingly insignificant subset of this set of images. That's all that's being said really. It's a bit silly - very akin to the statistical truth that if you leave a group of monkeys typing for long enough they will eventually type the entire works of shakespeare.

Theophany · 27 May 2011 at 20:17

A.N.Other said:
A single pixel digitized picture on your computer
screen is 1 pixels long by 1 pixels wide, for a total of
1 pixel. Using only 2 different colors, you can get an awful
resolution. Now if you take 2^1 (2 times itself 1 times)
you get... well, 2.
That's the number of different images you can have of that particular
size. Any picture you would scan into a computer at that size and
resolution will necessarily be one of those images. Therefore,
contained in those images are the images of the faces of every human
being who ever lived along with the images of the faces of every
person yet to be born.

Just FYI, the medicine cabinet isn't the sweet tin.

Psycho Sonny · 27 May 2011 at 20:23

Liampope said:
I dont see your point - who said anything about showing multiple images simultaneously. Of course a 1 pixel image is just a colour - I'm not suggesting otherwise - but the proposed 256 colour 640x480 image is sufficient to depict a human face recognisably, agree? Therefore a set of all possible 256 colour 640x480 images contains a recognisable picture of every human that ever was or could be. 256^307200 is the number of possible 256 colour 640x480 images. As an aside, these pictures of all humans would be a vanishingly insignificant subset of this set of images. That's all that's being said really. It's a bit silly - very akin to the statistical truth that if you leave a group of monkeys typing for long enough they will eventually type the entire works of shakespeare.

oh - i just got it now. thanks.

so basically that is the number of completely different images that could be shown on the screen ever.

i could have told you that without all the maths involved.

BunnyKillBot · 27 May 2011 at 20:31

So what your basically talking about is the random image generator. If you take a canvas and randomly generate each pixel value, there is a probability of forming the mona lisa, or something recognisable like seeing shapes in clouds.

A.N.Other · 27 May 2011 at 20:42

Theophany said:
Just FYI, the medicine cabinet isn't the sweet tin.

That, my friend, is where you are vastly incorrect

Persecuter · 27 May 2011 at 20:58

this is kinda like the ending of men in black

Clown · 27 May 2011 at 23:20

I'm more confused by the random word wrapping.

haaammit · 27 May 2011 at 23:26

Brain hurts after reading op :eek:

dirtybeatfreak · 27 May 2011 at 23:26

chaosdestro0 said:
You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense.

I did not understand that at all?? Was it supposed to not make sense, or have I just proven myself thick lol

Liampope · 27 May 2011 at 23:36

Psycho Sonny said:
oh - i just got it now. thanks.

so basically that is the number of completely different images that could be shown on the screen ever.

i could have told you that without all the maths involved.

Yeah quite right - no real need for the actual number. All that's really being said in the OP is that a picture of everyone is contained in the set of all possible pictures. Well dur - of course it is!

GreatAuk · 27 May 2011 at 23:37

vonhelmet said:
To be fair, once you start putting anything ^307200 it's going to end up stupidly large.

1^307200

Superewza said:
Monkeys, typewriters, Shakespeare?

They've already made a start:
http://www.vivaria.net/experiments/notes/publication/NOTES_EN.pdf

Can't be long until they're done now!

aardvark · 27 May 2011 at 23:42

whats your point?

Rroff · 28 May 2011 at 00:17

Goes beyond human faces tho, you'd also get well everything if you had long enough, blue prints for building everything possible, pages of the most advanced maths problems ever solved, etc. etc. just a shame that it would take so long to go through every single one tagging anything vaguely meaningful before you even started exploring the real data that the universe would probably have ended before you'd got to 10%.