Any sense?

Does this make any sense?
"OOOOOXXXOOOOOOOOXXOOOXXOOOOXXOOOOOOOXXOOXOOXXOXXOOXOXOOOOOOOOOOOXXOOXOOOOOXOOXOXOOXOOOXOOXOOXOOOXXXOOOXOOOXOOOOOOOXOOOOOXXOOOXXOOOOOOOOXXXOOOOO"

Nope,

I tried a couple of binary conversions and measuring lengths of the sequences, but I got nothing.

138 digits
380630c064d9400641291247110106300e0 in hex assuming binary (O = 0, X = 1)

ASCII conversions got me nowhere.

Putting in some line returns, its:

OOOOOXXXOOOOOOOOXXOOOXXOOOO

XXOOOOOOOXXOOXOOXXOXXOOXOXOOOOOOOOOOOXXOOXOOOOOXOOXOXOOXOOOXOOXOOXOOOXXXOOOXOOOXOOOOOOOXO

OOOOXXOOOXXOOOOOOOOXXXOOOOO

i.e the first 27 characters are the reverse of the last 27, fairly unlikely to be chance...

I was wrong about 138 digits; I wasn't including the 5 leading 'O's. It's actually 143, which means the sequence length is only divisible by 11 and 13.

Only two prime factors to the sequence length seems kind of odd to me. Take away the mirrored 27 characters on each end and you are left with 89, a prime.

Originally posted by forkedknight
I was wrong about 138 digits; I wasn't including the 5 leading 'O's. It's actually 143, which means the sequence length is only divisible by 11 and 13.

Only two prime factors to the sequence length seems kind of odd to me. Take away the mirrored 27 characters on each end and you are left with 89, a prime.

Are you assuming '0'=0 and 'X'=1? What if it was reversed?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Are you assuming '0'=0 and 'X'=1? What if it was reversed?

No.

There are 143 letters (X and O). The first 27 are identical to the last 27.

143 has only two prime factors. If you remove the identical ends, you get 89, apparently a prime.

This is working with ONLY the number of letters. Whether X or O is irrelevant except with respect to the pattern.

Within the central 89 there is only one instance of three x's in a row (xxx). However there are a LOT of O's.

This thing screams "DNA" at me. Introns and exons, telomeres...purines and pyramidines => X and O?

This is the longest stretch of O's in the central part...

OOOOOOOOOOO = 11 of them?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Within the central 89 there is only one instance of three x's in a row (xxx). However there are a LOT of O's.

This thing screams "DNA" at me. Introns and exons, telomeres...purines and pyramidines => X and O?

In fact, there are no combinations of more than 3 X's in a row. There are several for O's though, 5, 7, 8, and 11.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Within the central 89 there is only one instance of three x's in a row (xxx). However there are a LOT of O's.

This thing screams "DNA" at me. Introns and exons, telomeres...purines and pyramidines => X and O?

It kinda makes sense to compare it to DNA but it would be just a snippet considering there are billions of the suckers in humans🙂

One of you have made an important observation. Go further with that one and we will all be happy eventually.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
One of you have made an important observation. Go further with that one and we will all be happy eventually.

Only one important observation has been made? that's slightly disheartening 🙁

Originally posted by sonhouse
It kinda makes sense to compare it to DNA but it would be just a snippet considering there are billions of the suckers in humans🙂

mRNA or something maybe?

Taking the first 71 letters, and putting them next to the last 71 letters reversed ( missing out the middle "O" ) it is clear that there is a lot more similarity than one might expect:

OOOOOXXXOOOOOOOOXXOOOXXOOOO(X)XOOOOOOOX(X)OOXOO(X)X(O)X(X)OOXO(XO)OO(O)OOO(O)OO(OX)XOOXOO
OOOOOXXXOOOOOOOOXXOOOXXOOOO(O)XOOOOOOOX(O)OOXOO(O)X(X)X(O)OOXO(OX)OO(X)OOO(X)OO(XO)XOOXOO

if fact, after the first 27 identical characters, the remaining 44 in each half have only 11 differences, 25%

Therefore the two halves of the sequence are quite highly correlated even when they are different.

aha, got it!

🙂

There was indeed only one relevant observation, and it wasn't either of mine.