Ghideon

Thanks for the feedback, good to hear that you are back online and on the forum again! I have been using different adapters simultaneously and I have not seen this type of errors. But I'm curious! In case you find the specific issue feel free to report back. And if the issue comes back there are a couple of other things we may try from the command line, to try to isolate the problem.

Unfortunately your descriptions does not provide enough clarity regarding the previously raised issues to allow for any detailed analysis. The described methods contains many unrelated details and still fails to address the core problems. You seem to want to generate random source code files, not images? What is gained by introducing images* as part of the method, compared to using a data structure that will probably be more suitable for the problem wish to solve? The above initial steps describes requirements for the algorithm or method you wish to create, it does not describe methods or steps how to achieve your goals. Gathering and analyzing requirements can be useful when creating software but it does not give you a solution to the kind of problem you wish to solve. It's easy to state "I want a program that gives me a solution to this problem". But, for the reasons repeated through this thread, you have not presented a viable approach to solve the problem yet; the extremely large numbers of combinations and lack of method to distinguish a hit from a miss in the general case. *) Any digital sequence can of course be used to create some kind of visible representation (=image) of that digital sequence. But that does not seem to be the intention in this case.

We have seen that list of steps a few times by now. I would still preferred o get an answer to the questions raised. I'll try to phrase my question differently: The events each one of the clocks count does not happen all simultaneously. There is something that separates the counted events, referred to as "time" as far as I know. What is it that separates the events in your case if not time? How do you define it without making it identical to time? Given that definition what experiment can be used that shows your idea is correct?

Here is a picture. Force on the current carrying wire due to magnetic field does not include the magnetic field generated by the wire itself. Since force on the current carrying wire do not depend on the wire's own magnetic field the answer is the external magnetic field, in this case the magnetic field generated bý the magnets.

Thanks for your reply. The short answer to my question seams to be "no".

There are experiments with high density glass disc based memories intended for permanent, long term storage. Here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5D_optical_data_storage A quick overview: https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/5d-data-storage-how-does-it-work-and-when-can-we-use-it/ Link to paper from University of Southhampton: https://www.orc.soton.ac.uk/news/4282 Maybe the above is what you are looking for? There may be other variants, I have not studied this in any detail. I have not come across any reliable source within mainstream science supporting such claims. Can you provide a reference?

Ok. Doesn't the clocks have to have a stable frequency? If the numbers are not tied to time there is also no frequency, just a quantity of events recorded?

Because the blue arrow is in the wrong direction for the analysis of the force on the current carrying wire. Are you implying that the force on the current carrying wire depend on the magnetic field generated by the current carrying wire itself?

Ok. But if the experiment is supposed to be totally independent of time then it would be ok if one of the clocks is standing still, or randomly change ticking? That does of course not sound correct so you probably mean something else. But that "something else" seems to be time. But the number is not allowed to change arbitrarily? The number of events is very highly tied to time; maybe you have a definition of frequency that is not depending on time?

You said the clocks were moving. How do you decide when to take the reading that you later wish to compare? You also seem rely on time since you expect the clocks tick at a specified frequency.

But then you still rely on time in the observations and also describe a different experiment? Also note that your experiment seems to give the same result for two different setups: A: two clocks deviating due to time dilation as per Relativity theories B: two clocks deviating due to one of them running slow caused by setup issues* *) Fictive example to highlight the issues, @swansont would most likely be able to provide something better

(Emphasis mine) Just curious: Without time, how do you relate the observations of number of events for two clocks? When comparing the number of events for each clock there has to be some concept of starting and ending the counting of events?

I'l have to do some creative translation to try to answer: Surge = move suddenly and powerfully forward=acceleration? Waist of time = waste of time = a delay relative to something. Do you mean something like time dilation? If my interpretation is correct the answer is: Yes, if you accelerate atoms (matter) relative* to a stationary observer it will cause a clock riding along with the accelerated matter to measure less time passed than what the stationary observer measures on a stationary clock. *) for instance a certain distance along a circular path until the atoms are back at the location of the stationary observer

What kind of programming is that? Large enough quantities of mass or energy* will have a measurable effect on time: An observer closer to a source of gravitation (mass) will measure that time passes slower compared to an observer at a larger distance from the source of gravitation. The effect is described in General Relativity. *) E=mc^2

Not sure this is what you are looking for but physical computers are (usually) deterministic machines. Obtaining true randomness can be a challenge and there are cases where randomness is required, for instance in physics simulations or cryptography. So in theoretical computer science your question seems to make sense and in that case some kind of randomness needs to be "invented". Wikipedia has some information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_generator And here is an extract from Wolfram, Stephen (2002). A New Kind of Science:

Then they are not pennies, they are mutilated coins, a change of units.

Maybe a picture helps you understand Janus answer? 2 pennies plus 6 pennies equals 8 pennies: It seems like 6 pennies split equally means 3 pennies each: That does not seem like a reasonable conclusion in this context. As Janus said, units will not be consistent if you do something like:

I read your opening post and I did not understand all parts of it. But I was curious and hence asked a question. I was under the impression that posting an idea on a discussion forum meant that you had an interest in a discussion. Seems I was mistaken, sorry. My comment will therefore be short: Your explanations are incorrect. Permanent magnets do not blow. Magnetic fields are not winds. Your force vectors seems to have incorrect angles. Your idea does not match observations.

Why? I don't see how there is a force component towards the magnet in both cases.

Check the amount of energy per square meter. Also, if you do not agree on the searchlight, please comment on the other two examples I gave.

Do you have a reference to material that have caused you to misunderstand physics? Your ideas does not match observations, examples: 1: If you were correct* then for instance a strong spotlight shining at an airplane at night would affect the airplane gravitationally. But searchlights does not cause airplanes to fall down. 2: Black holes does not give off electromagnetic radiation (light) yet scientists are able to measure gravitational waves from black hole collisions; gravity and light is not related** in the way you seem to claim. 3: Friction, strong enough to affect movements of celestial bodies would have a huge effect on their atmospheres and/or surfaces. We do not observe such an effect. *) You are not correct **) General relativity predicts behavior and interactions of gravity, energy and mass. It is a well tested theory that does not match your claims.

Are you looking for heuristics that could be developed and supported by science (models and observations) as comparison to reasonable methods that may be not scientifically tested? Example: sorting out all edge pieces that makes up the other boundary of a jigsaw is a reasonable starting point, but is it more efficient* than first sorting pieces by color? Your question also trigger many interesting thoughts regarding a human's approach vs what the outcome would be from a computer model. I'm thinking different that heuristics may be applied; for instance if there is only one way pieces fit due to their shape then the jigsaw could (theoretically) be solved even if pieces are upside down, by only looking at shapes. But for a tessellated jigsaw puzzle the shape is not giving away information where a piece should be placed. If two pieces of a tessellated jigsaw would have an identical printed motive then there are more than one possible solution. To me it looks like various types of jigsaws and hence the methods used to find the solution belongs to different "classes". Can these types be approached by formal mathematics**, analyzed and compared? If so that is another scientific aspect of jigsaw I guess. I'll postpone adding more machine learning aspects until/unless you wish to dig deeper into that area, I would risk turning this post into a blog at this time. I totalt agree. This triggers some healthy out of the box thinking, a good way to spend some of the time this first day on the new year***. *) as measured by some agreed upon scientific way, I have no suggestion at this time. **) I do not know what branch of mathematics that would be. ***) according to local time zone and calendar. standards here

Ok. Ok. I'll wait for that.

Brute force yes* Ignorance no. Brute force + ignorance probably no. Here is one paper not based on brute force or ignorance: https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.09246 (I have not had time to read the paper in detail) There are several properties of jigsaw puzzles that have interesting connections to machine learning in case you wish to discuss that aspect of your question.

It got lost in translation, may I ask for a clarification? Are we discussing a picture cut into various pieces or a saw with a fine blade enabling it to cut curved lines? I guess both can be approached scientifically. Unsupervised Learning within machine learning is one area where solving jigsaw puzzles is scientifically analyzed as far as I know.