tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.comments2015-11-16T05:28:50.112-08:00About IntelligenceHugo Penedoneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02746022526894210415noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-55191595589378745182013-02-22T13:21:12.596-08:002013-02-22T13:21:12.596-08:00This could be interesting to reverse an existing i...This could be interesting to reverse an existing image/grid and calculate c (cycle) from that. Then we could compare similar images of say 1 person's face, or multiple peoples faces, to check for any relation in the numbers...Stewart Ridgwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03248133221689266349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-47587806718230796412012-08-16T12:50:06.105-07:002012-08-16T12:50:06.105-07:00Actually, it wouldn't even be that painstaking...Actually, it wouldn't even be that painstaking. If you had a program that cycled that states of each pixel systematically and very fast so that one pixel changes per image, you wouldn't have to worry about a cohesive image going by too fast. It would take just about as long for the image to be completely reduced to noise as it probably took for it to appear. for quite some time you'd be staring at the image of a face let's say, for quite a while, as the pixels at the upper-left would be flickering at a mad speed, without even effecting the rest of the image.Sebastian Candorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08906700870115726377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-46514184190498325592012-08-16T12:43:59.701-07:002012-08-16T12:43:59.701-07:00the number of possible events which can occur in t...the number of possible events which can occur in time are not infinite, so over the course of infinity a point at which all events which take place are events which have already taken place must occur. Cool because it probabilistically it almost guarantees an afterlife (whatever it is that makes you at some distant point in the future re-configuring into you again)Sebastian Candorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08906700870115726377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-30076766596432156482012-08-16T12:40:23.383-07:002012-08-16T12:40:23.383-07:00There is a way of inputting a number and getting a...There is a way of inputting a number and getting a particular image, but the number only tells the program when to stop during its cycle, so in order to get that cycle number, yes, you must already have the image. I thought of a system for doing this, but tell me if I made a mistake. First, I thought that if you had an 800*600 grid where each cell can have 1 of 24 states, that the sum of total configurations would be 24^(800*600). Are pixels different from a simple grid, or did I miss something else? Anyway, so the program would systematically go through every possible state of the first cell. Once it went full cycle it would reset and then increment the next cell over by 1, and so on like this so that every cell over would go full cycle 1/n times as fast as the cell before, where n = the total number of possible values. In two dimensions, once the last cell of a row completes its cycle, the next increment happens at column 1 and down a row. Now at every cycle the full state of the grid can be assigned a number based on whatever cycle it is currently on so that the images are organized numerically, but the numbers get huge eventually so why try to store them all. However, there is a way of taking the state of a preexisting set (for instance, a set of ascii characters which make an image) and based on the value at and coordinates of a each individual cell, determine at which cycle of the aforementioned method that image appears.<br /><br />First, assigning each possible value of a cell, v, a numerical value from 1 to n total values.<br />Then, assign each cell a numerical value, p.<br />Now solve for the values v and p in in this equation: (v-1)n^(p-1)+1 = c = cycle at which value makes first singular appearance.<br />Sum all the results, and then subtract n from the result. Now you have the label of that particular image, which you can now use to tell a program such as the one described above when to stop cycling, and it would land on that image. This however would be cool only because you actually would get to see the computer stopped on an image of yourself, but of course it would only be the exact same image you already had to solve for c in the first place.<br /><br />Sebastian Candorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08906700870115726377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-69477758780920805522012-07-17T02:14:31.618-07:002012-07-17T02:14:31.618-07:00http://code.google.com/p/every-picturehttp://code.google.com/p/every-pictureAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-10579016318132958432012-03-03T15:24:12.560-08:002012-03-03T15:24:12.560-08:00Hi, there. I recently found a paper that talks exa...Hi, there. I recently found a paper that talks exactly about this: the existence (or non-existence) of a computer program that generates all "natural images" (and only those). You can find it here: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/researchreports/344cris.pdf<br />It seems interesting, because the author has an understanding of statistics / manifolds / kolmogorov complexity.<br />Maybe you can look at the papers it cites as well. Or just search in google scholar for "statistics of natural images". That way you will find more machine learning and neuroscience papers, like this one:<br />http://www.cns.nyu.edu/~tony/vns/readings/simoncelli-olshausen-2001.pdf<br /><br />Greetings,<br />HugoHugo Penedoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02746022526894210415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-72580260482766310342012-03-03T15:10:11.640-08:002012-03-03T15:10:11.640-08:00There exist many research papers on the topic of l...There exist many research papers on the topic of learning the statistics of natural images. However, I recently found one that specifically talks about the existence (or non-existence) of a computer program that would generate only the subset of "perceptually distinguishable" images:<br /><br />https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/2292/3851/344cris.pdf?sequence=1<br /><br />Might be an interesting reading as a follow up of this blog post.Hugo Penedoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02746022526894210415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-87689755248409592862012-03-03T12:57:43.168-08:002012-03-03T12:57:43.168-08:00Sometimes when I think about this, and I've be...Sometimes when I think about this, and I've been thinking about it for some time (as my first comment was posted here in 2008, I wonder if it isn't the wrong question we are asking. Isn't it true that what we are really looking for is a function the generates useful images and nothing more? Perhaps it's not brute force (generating all the images and sorting them) that we should be focused on but instead trying to write code that would never generate noise, but how do we do that? We would have to figure out (or rather clearly define) what makes a "good" or "worthwhile" image. After all, won't many of the images actually be photos of grains of sand or moon dust? We MUST FIRST establish a class of images that we find interesting.---- Let's do this, what are the fields of study that are working on these kinds of ideas? Are there books, or fields of mathematics that would help?---https://www.blogger.com/profile/04377024245114542172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-76359806011758922502011-12-15T14:44:32.696-08:002011-12-15T14:44:32.696-08:00This is quite profound actually!This is quite profound actually!Lucasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-65218963799618269052011-12-15T07:18:39.672-08:002011-12-15T07:18:39.672-08:00I've been doing this recently aswell. I'm ...I've been doing this recently aswell. I'm using the GMP library. I can process a single 50x50x16 images in seconds but a 300x200x256 took about 10minutes to generate What I'm also doing is given an image (which im assuming is grayscale) is converting it to its index value (key) and then trying to plot it on a graph of all posible keys jsut to see if there is a specific range of keys that mean something. It would also be good to distiguish between true images and fake one. I'm also trying to find a formula so I can upscale a key from a smaller set to a larger set. Could be useful for improving grainy CCTV image or something. Or just for archivings stuff. I was wondering if there was a relationship between keys (say you find the index for a pic of someone then a pic of them years later, could this difference in the keys to applied to someone elses picture to see how they would age? also a similar thing with image sequences of lottery tickets?) Although it does feel like looking for a needle in a haystack.darrennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-85676045541388726172011-09-16T05:42:57.044-07:002011-09-16T05:42:57.044-07:00Why does it have to be in color?
If you use 256 v...Why does it have to be in color?<br /><br />If you use 256 values for each Red, Green and Blue, you would have 4 billion images with only 4 pixels, which is insane, if you plan on doing this for 800*600 images. It's a HUGE number<br /><br />My idea is to use only black and white, and images of size 100*100. I've calculated that you could generate a total of about 2e3010 images in total. It's an awful lot, and 100*100 images are rather small, adding to the fact that it's only black and white.<br /><br />I'm not ready to saturate my computer with a zillion of meaningless images, but I'm really interested in programming this, just for fun.<br /><br />My idea is to just let the computer generate for about a day, then every night erase the ones that are not interesting.Lyesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-67884502163811136262011-05-10T13:13:30.493-07:002011-05-10T13:13:30.493-07:00You should invoke it from the command line as:
$ ...You should invoke it from the command line as:<br /><br />$ lua usps_cnn.lua<br /><br />or <br /><br />$ lua<br />Lua 5.1.4 Copyright (C) 1994-2008 Lua.org, PUC-Rio<br />> dofile('usps_cnn.lua')Hugo Penedoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02746022526894210415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-52587671650082691332011-05-10T10:47:45.635-07:002011-05-10T10:47:45.635-07:00Hello,
How do I run your code? I tried:
$ lua
Lu...Hello,<br /><br />How do I run your code? I tried:<br /><br />$ lua<br />Lua 5.1.4 Copyright (C) 1994-2008 Lua.org, PUC-Rio<br />> usps_cnn.lua <br />>> main<br />stdin:2: '=' expected near 'main'<br />> <br /><br />but when I run the main it gives me error. What am I doing wrong?<br /><br />Thanks,<br />Silvio FilipeSilviohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00514837027258992955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-26765173613159242162011-03-12T11:37:15.693-08:002011-03-12T11:37:15.693-08:00As you keep incrementing numbers, you can get all ...As you keep incrementing numbers, you can get all sorts of weird images(like bill gates with a body of an alien and the mirror-image of the IBM logo on his forehead, selling cannon-ball sized peanuts in a region like Antarctica).<br /><br />The total number of all possible images would be 2^(24 * 800 * 600) = approx 3.548534756824903605544680295715... E+3467865 (A 3,467,866(exact) digit number)<br /><br />I think it would take 1.125...* 10^3467857 years to see all those images at a rate of 10 images per second.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-51583050339608935142011-02-16T09:18:41.423-08:002011-02-16T09:18:41.423-08:00@anon June 11, 2010 6:36 PM
The resulting number...@anon June 11, 2010 6:36 PM <br /><br />The resulting number of images would be finite because we're only generating all possible images in finite dimensions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-26847662700613620942011-02-16T09:14:39.484-08:002011-02-16T09:14:39.484-08:00Wow, I've been thinking about this lately.
I&#...Wow, I've been thinking about this lately.<br />I'll try to do it just to see how it progresses.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-57880264072511236022010-10-13T11:24:07.828-07:002010-10-13T11:24:07.828-07:00Is there a website where something like this has b...Is there a website where something like this has been done? I find it so intriguing to think of the possibilities, and who's to say we need a database to search all these images? Why not just get volunteers to look through all the images generated? I'd be more than willing. If you were to only glance at all the images you know are rubbish, like ones with solid block of colour or nothing more than a mess of it then surely you'd quickly be able to find useful images.Conard Cratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-81813411914184017252010-08-18T07:32:06.482-07:002010-08-18T07:32:06.482-07:00interesting :)interesting :)Alfian_Troxionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05233869783935649448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-48542990183341176452010-07-16T07:50:55.393-07:002010-07-16T07:50:55.393-07:00I like your definition and share your view-point o...I like your definition and share your view-point on life<br /><br />We are what we think.<br />All that we are arises with our thoughts.<br />With our thoughts we make the world...<br /><br />http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/dhammapada-01.html<br /><br />I would also add that the WinWin strategy could also be regarded as a regularization on the single-person richness maximization... A lot of wealth is contained also in poverty, understood as self-limitation/balancing.<br /><br />again good luck for this summer :-)Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-76394720988626238072010-06-11T18:36:56.812-07:002010-06-11T18:36:56.812-07:00There's an even more interesting fact about th...There's an even more interesting fact about the set of all possible images at a given resolution: time.<br /><br />Although the number of images would be incredibly high, they *must* depict every subject *in time*.<br /><br />Yet, the number of images is "finite", while time is tought to be infinite - or it's not ? :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-16060855933455633992010-06-04T04:40:42.580-07:002010-06-04T04:40:42.580-07:00Yes, but the input number is the image itself!Yes, but the input number is the image itself!Hugo Penedoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02746022526894210415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-45069270806103237172010-06-03T12:59:09.260-07:002010-06-03T12:59:09.260-07:00since there is 2^(24 * 800 * 600) pictures at 800 ...since there is 2^(24 * 800 * 600) pictures at 800 * 600 reselution, there is posible to give every picture at 800 * 600 a number. it woud be cool to make a program where you could type the number and get that picture.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-38376658870399249182010-04-30T07:18:07.716-07:002010-04-30T07:18:07.716-07:00The idea cannot work for all your samples.
If we ...The idea cannot work for all your samples. <br />If we define the 800x600 Image as "information", then we cannot obviously get "all the information in the world", but only "2^(24 * 800 * 600) pieces of information". <br /><br />An information needs to be interpreted, in order to have some "meaning", and interpreting images is very different from interpreting text/music.<br /><br />So, for images, we could get all images recognizable as 800x600 (so, almost all 4:3 pictures/paintings in the world, at low resolution), but we would never "recognize" a picture of the whole sky map.<br /><br />For texts we need to define how we translate "pixels" to "characters". If we translate images to text as we read it, we would get all texts writable in a 4:3 screen (about anything you could write in a A4 paper). Even with the best possible conversion (1 pixel = 24 bits = 3 UTF-8 chars) we would get all possible texts shorter than 2^(3 * 800 * 600). I don't know if Dante's works would fit. <br /><br />To get all the possible books in the universe, you need Terry Pratchett's L-Space (an infinte library), and possibly an Orangutan librarian... :)Filinihttp://www.filini.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-45651271885291683552010-04-27T02:51:32.719-07:002010-04-27T02:51:32.719-07:00@Pop Catalin: Yes, generating an image at random h...@Pop Catalin: Yes, generating an image at random has *extremely* high probability of showing nothing of interest. However, in the thought experiment I describe in my post, we generate the set of *all* possible images one by one. But of course, as mentioned several times in the discussion, this is just completely unfeasible.Hugo Penedoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02746022526894210415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3637605010144131610.post-42560119310805475222010-04-26T14:42:52.687-07:002010-04-26T14:42:52.687-07:00Except you could never do this with a pseudo rando...Except you could never do this with a pseudo random number generator like the ones used in programming. The algorithm will repeat itself at some point due to it's mathematical nature and finite set of data it uses to generate pseudo random numbers. <br /><br />The chance of not getting any recognizable picture using a program is astronomically higher than the chance of getting one. <br /><br />After all it took the universe billions o years and uncountable permutations over a enormous data set to randomly position atoms into a structure that is your face. <br />How could a mere pseudo random generator using 128 or 256 or 512 bits or more of input and some basic mathematical formula have a chance of recreating that ?Pop Catalinnoreply@blogger.com