# Detecting the Base/Radix of the Universe.

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by Skybuck Flying, Jul 26, 2013.

1. ### Skybuck FlyingGuest

Hello,

I was thinking of my corewars evolver and how the mutation code was single
threaded and because of amdal's law or whatever it's called this might
bottleneck the scalability of the software in the future. So two
possibilities might exist:

1. Multi thread the mutation code by for example ranking the winners, and
then each thread processes a winner by dividing/distributing the winners
among the mutation threads by using their rank and number of threads and so
forth. Batch processing like... I already coded such an algorithm for
something else so that might be possible.

But I was thinking of another way to speed up the single threaded code:

2. Instead of using all kinds of complex mutation code, keep it very simply
by simplying modifieing 1 little bit in the instruction encoding of a
warrior. So 1 bit mutations at a time.
This could actually work... in case values go out of scope... apply some
fixing/modulation to it to fix it up... it does security checks like this
anyway... so kinda interesting idea... keep the ammount of code to maintain
very low too and it might produce interesting mutations too.

Which led me to the following idea/thought:

Let's assume for a moment that the universe is running in a computer... just
like our corewars simulations and let's suppose that God was lazy... or
whoever build the super computer... maybe the super computer also evolved
naturally and it is using very simply processing to do it's thing. Then Lazy
God... or Natural Universe Building Method... might have come up with
this very same idea: Causing mutations/random events from occuring simply by

I think this kind of simple mutation could be detected by analyzing changes
to values, in the real world too perhaps.

For example if the universe's computer was binary it could only alter values
as follows:

0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, and so forth.

So the delta between new and old would always be one of these.

Our system would be:

0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,
10, 100
20 200
30 300
40 400
50 500
60 600
70 700
80 800
90 900

And so forth, depending on what radix position was changed/mutated.

This idea is kinda interesting.

Later today I might think of an algorithm that would be able to detect the
"Base/Radix" of an unknown numbering system... by observing changes to
values.

Later today I will also google to see if such a "Base detection algorithm"

If I do manage to invent such an algorithm... I'll make some software
publicly available so that anybody in the world collecting random changes to
values and plug/enter them into the software and see what it turns up/what
kind of conclusion it comes to/base returned !

If you have any ideas for such an algorithm let me know too... It might take
the fun out of it if you beat me to it... if it doesn't exist yet... but
that's ok.

For now I have to go to the barbershop to get a badly needed haircut ! =D

Bye,
Skybuck.
May the Base system be with you ! =D

2. ### Skybuck FlyingGuest

I did a quick google, cause I am kinda curious about it:

This might be of some use:

I think here a value (144 using symbols from our 10-digital system) in a
*known* numbering system (base 8) is compared to a value (121 using symbols
from our 10-digital system) in an *unknown* numbering system (r).

Then a formula is given to find the value for r:

"
To find r, just solve the quadratic equation: (r to the power of 2) plus (2
multiplied by r) plus (1) equals (100)
"

Also it seems the formula can be re-written as:

"
((r + 1) to the power of 2) equals (100)
"

If this formula is correct I don't know yet... why this formula works I
don't know yet.

It could be valid for ours assuming 0 to 9.

That could mean our base is 9 ? maybe this is slightly off by 1... at least
this could indicating the number of digits and then add 1 or so ?

However this idea/formula assumes that both values (121) and (144) have the
same meaning/the same power in both bases.

So I guess the formula is only suited if we can find values in our own base
and then compare it to equal meaning values in the universe base.

I am not sure how that would work

Maybe observing some kind of maximum... like our DNA only has 4 letters....
so observing the ammount of different values/entities/solutions/ranges...
now it's maybe getting a bit too vague...

Maybe comparing values in different bases, is not the solution to finding
the base of the universe.

I shall stick with my original idea of observing changes in values
This way only a single base has to be examined.

Bye,
Skybuck.