- 07 Jul '10 19:50I 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. - 07 Jul '10 23:27

Are you assuming '0'=0 and 'X'=1? What if it was reversed?*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. - 07 Jul '10 23:36

No.*Originally posted by sonhouse***Are you assuming '0'=0 and 'X'=1? What if it was reversed?**

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. - 08 Jul '10 00:31

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? - 08 Jul '10 04:05

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*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? - 09 Jul '10 00:20 / 5 editsTaking 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.