1. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    07 Jul '10 15:16
    Does this make any sense?
    "OOOOOXXXOOOOOOOOXXOOOXXOOOOXXOOOOOOOXXOOXOOXXOXXOOXOXOOOOOOOOOOOXXOOXOOOOOXOOXOXOOXOOOXOOXOOXOOOXXXOOOXOOOXOOOOOOOXOOOOOXXOOOXXOOOOOOOOXXXOOOOO"
  2. Standard memberforkedknight
    Defend the Universe
    127.0.0.1
    Joined
    18 Dec '03
    Moves
    16018
    07 Jul '10 16:141 edit
    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.
  3. Joined
    26 Apr '03
    Moves
    25805
    07 Jul '10 19:00
    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...
  4. Standard memberforkedknight
    Defend the Universe
    127.0.0.1
    Joined
    18 Dec '03
    Moves
    16018
    07 Jul '10 19:50
    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.
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52724
    07 Jul '10 23:27
    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?
  6. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    All My Soldiers...
    tinyurl.com/y9ls7wbl
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    07 Jul '10 23:36
    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.
  7. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    All My Soldiers...
    tinyurl.com/y9ls7wbl
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    07 Jul '10 23:381 edit
    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?
  8. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    All My Soldiers...
    tinyurl.com/y9ls7wbl
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    07 Jul '10 23:41
    This is the longest stretch of O's in the central part...

    OOOOOOOOOOO = 11 of them?
  9. Standard memberforkedknight
    Defend the Universe
    127.0.0.1
    Joined
    18 Dec '03
    Moves
    16018
    08 Jul '10 00:31
    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.
  10. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52724
    08 Jul '10 04:05
    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🙂
  11. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    08 Jul '10 14:52
    One of you have made an important observation. Go further with that one and we will all be happy eventually.
  12. Standard memberforkedknight
    Defend the Universe
    127.0.0.1
    Joined
    18 Dec '03
    Moves
    16018
    08 Jul '10 21:06
    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 🙁
  13. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    All My Soldiers...
    tinyurl.com/y9ls7wbl
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    08 Jul '10 22:24
    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?
  14. Joined
    26 Apr '03
    Moves
    25805
    09 Jul '10 00:205 edits
    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.
  15. Joined
    26 Apr '03
    Moves
    25805
    09 Jul '10 07:554 edits
    aha, got it!

    🙂

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