IMHO one of the core issue with those IP problems is the notion that everything must be owned by someone.
Yes, but only until the patent expires. Then, in theory, the invention belongs to everybody.
Then again, it's been said... "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not." How big are the loopholes surrounding this aspect of the patent system?
It's helpful to keep in mind that any mathematical description of a system doesn't really shed light on what the system is; merely how it behaves.
It's quite possible that all these different approaches (string theory, solid-state, quantum gravity, etc.) could each lead to perfectly consistent and accurate descriptions of the universe, and might eventually shown to be mathematically equivalent to each other (I wouldn't be surprised), but none of them can answer the more fundamental question of what the universe actually is, or why it is here... or for that matter, why we are in it.
My own viewpoint is that the complexity of the universe is a result of the emergent properties of a finite number of simple laws, particle-based or otherwise. The caveat is that the word "Particle" in this context is really a "suitcase" word, (sort of like "consciousness,") where we take a nebulously defined concept and slap a label on it to make it sound concrete, without explicitly defining what we mean. Perhaps the solid-state theories work by defining large and complex objects as "particles" in their system? The tail can wag the dog in any field, and in my area of expertise, software hacking (ahem, development) often seems the epitome of dog-wagging.
And in the end, what fun would the universe be if there were no more mystery left? Fortunately, the complexity of the universe appears to be far enough beyond our capacity to figure it out, that it will keep things interesting for us for a very long time to come. I can't even figure out my cat; what hope is there for solving the really fundamental questions?
d. They use a base-10 number system or would know enough to recognise a base-10 prime number.
Last I checked, primes are primes in all bases; they are not base-dependent.
I imagine that we would send the mersenne exponent in binary. (And as someone pointed out above, it's very funny that the mersenne prime itself would consist of all ones!)
So what would I think if Chewbacca beamed a thirty meg prime number into my PowerBook? I sure as hell wouldn't pick up instantly on its nature.
One nice property of Mersenne primes is that they can be expressed in very little space. So although the prime number written out in decimal may take up thirty megs, the same number could also be expressed more cleanly like this:
2 ** 23456789 - 1. (or whatever the actual exponent is.)
This format would allow all 39 Mersenne primes to be encoded in only a couple hundred bytes, and it's not too farfetched that decent ET mathematicians could figure out what that sequence means. Of course, we might want to test out the signal on Earth mathematicians first...
Slashdot Mirror
IMHO one of the core issue with those IP problems is the notion that everything must be owned by someone.
Yes, but only until the patent expires. Then, in theory, the invention belongs to everybody.
Then again, it's been said... "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not." How big are the loopholes surrounding this aspect of the patent system?
The e-pencil?
Just let's not start with the white-out jokes.
In 20 years when the encryption is broken, will we then find out what "Rijndael" really means?
It's helpful to keep in mind that any mathematical description of a system doesn't really shed light on what the system is; merely how it behaves.
It's quite possible that all these different approaches (string theory, solid-state, quantum gravity, etc.) could each lead to perfectly consistent and accurate descriptions of the universe, and might eventually shown to be mathematically equivalent to each other (I wouldn't be surprised), but none of them can answer the more fundamental question of what the universe actually is, or why it is here... or for that matter, why we are in it.
My own viewpoint is that the complexity of the universe is a result of the emergent properties of a finite number of simple laws, particle-based or otherwise. The caveat is that the word "Particle" in this context is really a "suitcase" word, (sort of like "consciousness,") where we take a nebulously defined concept and slap a label on it to make it sound concrete, without explicitly defining what we mean. Perhaps the solid-state theories work by defining large and complex objects as "particles" in their system? The tail can wag the dog in any field, and in my area of expertise, software hacking (ahem, development) often seems the epitome of dog-wagging.
And in the end, what fun would the universe be if there were no more mystery left? Fortunately, the complexity of the universe appears to be far enough beyond our capacity to figure it out, that it will keep things interesting for us for a very long time to come. I can't even figure out my cat; what hope is there for solving the really fundamental questions?
But it's sure fun to speculate.
-Ben
Another way of putting it:
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.
Or, courtesy of Douglas Hofstadter:
Hofstadter's Law: It will always take longer than you think, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.
Ben
I was actually surprised just how much Internet penetration there was.
Yes, this is precisely what the Chinese government is trying to censor..
These things are sweet. Ten minutes to roast fresh coffee, like a popcorn popper. Green coffee beans are half the price of pre-roasted beans, anyway.
http://www.sweetmarias.com/prod.hearthware.shtml
Of course, if you're a tea drinker, never mind.
d. They use a base-10 number system or would know enough to recognise a base-10 prime number.
Last I checked, primes are primes in all bases; they are not base-dependent.
I imagine that we would send the mersenne exponent in binary. (And as someone pointed out above, it's very funny that the mersenne prime itself would consist of all ones!)
So what would I think if Chewbacca beamed a thirty meg prime number into my PowerBook? I sure as hell wouldn't pick up instantly on its nature.
One nice property of Mersenne primes is that they can be expressed in very little space. So although the prime number written out in decimal may take up thirty megs, the same number could also be expressed more cleanly like this: 2 ** 23456789 - 1. (or whatever the actual exponent is.) This format would allow all 39 Mersenne primes to be encoded in only a couple hundred bytes, and it's not too farfetched that decent ET mathematicians could figure out what that sequence means. Of course, we might want to test out the signal on Earth mathematicians first...