|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Heh heh -
In a typical population of 1,000,000, I would guess that there are probably 3,000 people who are capable of solving the math without much difficulty. Possibly fewer. The number of people who actually have access to an unabridged list of real SSN's is probably much smaller. I think that this list would be really helpful, because there are only 250,000,000 people in the US, hance, approximately that many SSN's. Knowing which numbers are not active SSN's would narrow in on a solution, but only part way. And if you have 67 million SSNs which are the product of two primes both greater than 161, then the odds are more like 1:67,000,000. And, assuming only 1/4 of all possible SSN's are valid - (250,000,000 is 1/4th of 9*10^8), this brings the odds down to something like 1 in 17,000,000. - Assuming the original assertion was even truthful ; ) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
LEFTY wrote:
In a typical population of 1,000,000, I would guess that there are probably 3,000 people who are capable of solving the math without much difficulty. Possibly fewer. Three in a thousand? That's probably not too far off. The number of people who actually have access to an unabridged list of real SSN's is probably much smaller. I think that this list would be really helpful, because there are only 250,000,000 people in the US, hance, approximately that many SSN's. Knowing which numbers are not active SSN's would narrow in on a solution, but only part way. Unless active SSNs are somehow biased with respect to being the product of two large primes, it won't affect the probability--only the total number of such SSNs. Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Brian Tung wrote: LEFTY wrote: In a typical population of 1,000,000, I would guess that there are probably 3,000 people who are capable of solving the math without much difficulty. Possibly fewer. Three in a thousand? That's probably not too far off. The number of people who actually have access to an unabridged list of real SSN's is probably much smaller. I think that this list would be really helpful, because there are only 250,000,000 people in the US, hance, approximately that many SSN's. Knowing which numbers are not active SSN's would narrow in on a solution, but only part way. Unless active SSNs are somehow biased with respect to being the product of two large primes, it won't affect the probability--only the total number of such SSNs. Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt I'm much better at FermiMath than number theory, but if I had to make an educated guess, I think that I would probably earn about 5 times my current salary if the opposite were true. I dont know how good I am at cosmology. There is a very high probability that I suck at it, and that my ideas are ridiculous. However, when placed side by side with other explanations of quantum wierdness, I'd have to say that the probability that I am right is very likely non-zero. Perhaps I could calculate the probability of being correct, but that would preclude my ability to ever know if I was or not ? Looks like HP just announced some type of quantum computing technology. Very interesting stuff. I need to prove if the 3rd dimension exists or not as described in this thread. How to construct a test of such a thing ? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
LEFTY wrote:
In a typical population of 1,000,000, I would guess that there are probably 3,000 people who are capable of solving the math without much difficulty. Possibly fewer. Maybe. I wouldn't automatically assume that about the readers of the sci.* hierarchy, though. And if you have 67 million SSNs which are the product of two primes both greater than 161, then the odds are more like 1:67,000,000. Your choice of the otherwise apparently arbitrary number 161 would lead me to guess that one of the factors is close to this. And SSNs aren't random. The high digits are pretty highly correlated with the date and place of issue. We could be down to a few thousand candidates. - Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Actually, you are correct. The number of people who can make such a
claim (SSN product of 2 primes both161) are probably few in number. The only reason I even mentioned it is that while it would be difficult to determine my identity from this fact alone, it would also be nearly impossible for someone to impersonate me. Although I cant think of a single reason why someone would want to, in my case, ......... I was thinking about the whole "gigantic clock" argument, and it seems like this must be related to relativity somehow. My whole argument about time is based on motion, and relativity (GR) is also based on motion. They must be related somehow, but I do not know how. Anyhow- I need an experiment to falsify, or validate my absurd claims about the universe. The idea that information could travel instantaneously seems to make sense, because 3D is a point in 4D spacetime, and 3D has no time component so that if anything happens in 3D it must happen instantaneously. This seems to explain parts of the beam splitter experiments very well, but hindsight is 20/20. I need to make a prediction, and then validate it. What other properties would you expect from 3D ? What behaviours would you expect to observe at the boundary between 4D and 3D ? Might be able to use the property of "uniqueness of physical objects" somehow ? OK - Here's what I need to know. I want to set up a beam splitter experiment in the following manner. Instead of having a single photon source, there wil be several. And, We will try to arrange the apparatus so that if information is travelling across an unseen 3D manifold, then there must be a topology which it is following, and perhaps several experiments running simultaneously will allow us to demonstrate that the information from one beam splitter intereferes with the information from another. Or something like that. Assuming information is travelling across 3D, it must be traversing some type of topology, and maybe you can play tricks using that fact. Maybe you can cause interaction of information in 3D which would show up in beam splitter arrangements. This might be very easy to do. If you assume that the information is following a path of some kind, maybe paths can be crossed ? Hmmmmm...... |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
More on setting up an experiment.
Assuming that the relativistic arguments described here are correct, we have a 4D universe and the quantum world is 3D relative to an observer. This 3D world is really 4-dimensional, but it appears 3D to an observer. Because the quantum world is (for our purposes) really a 4 dimensional world, energy, or "information" would be expected to interact in much the same way that we observe on non-quantum scales. However, the whole process is invisible to us, because we percieve the quantum world as being 3D, and it is completely invisible to us due to relativistic effects. Additionally, the 3rd dimension does have volume, and so forcing information to interact might be more tricky than if it were 2-dimensional, but should still be possible. Another problem is that not all energy forms interact very noticeably. It is common to see energy forms which do not seem to react very much at all. For example, electrons can be deflected by magnetism, but photons cannot. The same might be true of "information" which is expected to interact in this invisible 3D world. I'm reasonably certain that it's futile anyay - but it all seems to make sense at this point. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Many experiments could be set up which would seemingly support the
ideas presented here. However, what I need is an experiment which irrefutably demonstrates a transition from the 4th to the 3rd dimension on the quantum scale, or proves it wrong. There must be some physical phenomena which can be observed IFF this transition really exists. Conversely, there must be some physical phenomena which can be observed IFF the whole idea is false. True, false, I dont really care. It sems to make sense and I must know if it's true or not, and why. There must be something which occurs IFF the 4th dimension transitions into the 3rd, relativistically. This should be very easy. It is just good old fashioned dimensionality. C'mon guys - help me out here. Any & all suggestions welcomed. All I need is just one little "IFF" and I'ts onward & upward to Sandia. X true IFF Y true. Two stinking little variables. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|