TOTAL number of CURRENT combos(?)/permutations(?) available

[dmd7978]

Hi, this isnt spam, AT ALLLLLLL, but I cannot explain this in words, I had to show it in a desktop screen recording... Sorry.

I would like to know the total number of "ways" that my software allows the desktop to appear, at any moment and I cannot, even BEGIN, to formulate the question correctly, in words, I fear...


SUPER LEGIT QUESTION, NOT A POST TO HAVE PEOPLE LOOKING AT A YOUTUBE VIDEO, i PINKY PROMISE.

I am very grateful for the help...VERY VERY VERY GRATEFUL

And forgive how I stumble in the video, it is a sad truth that, simply, ASKING the question is taxing on my simple, logic minded...mind


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrgK8La-80U&feature=youtu.be

 

[daon2]

I watched most of the video, it is not a hard problem if I understand your question. Each interactive picture can be "on" or "off" (2 choices). Assuming there are 60 such pictures and if in addition there are 700 backgrounds to choose from, the total number is

\(\displaystyle 700\cdot 2^{60}\,\, \approx\,\, 807,045,053,000,000,000,000\)

 

[dmd7978]

I watched most of the video, it is not a hard problem if I understand your question. Each interactive picture can be "on" or "off" (2 choices). Assuming there are 60 such pictures and if in addition there are 700 backgrounds to choose from, the total number is

\(\displaystyle 700\cdot 2^{60}\,\, \approx\,\, 807,045,053,000,000,000,000\)

Hi. Not exactly. There are 700 character/object/vehicle images that can appear over, any one of about 30 background "wallpapers".

Does this change the answer? Thanks for the reply

Would it then be 30\cdot 2^{700) ? whatever that is?

 

[daon2]

Hi. Not exactly. There are 700 character/object/vehicle images that can appear over, any one of about 30 background "wallpapers".

Does this change the answer? Thanks for the reply

Would it then be 30\cdot 2^{700) ? whatever that is?

In that case, yes. That number is really "too big" and might as well be considered infinite. It is approximately a trillion times greater than a googol number of googols. (A googol is a 1 with 100 zeros ofter it.)

 

[dmd7978]

In that case, yes. That number is really "too big" and might as well be considered infinite. It is approximately a trillion times greater than a googol number of googols. (A googol is a 1 with 100 zeros ofter it.)

THANK YOU, very glad to hear that. I am, somewhat, shocked.

 

[daon2]

THANK YOU, very glad to hear that. I am, somewhat, shocked.

That's normal. Here's a related story:

When the creator of the game of chess (in some tellings an ancient Indian mathematician, in others a legendary dravidavellalar named Sessa or Sissa) showed his invention to the ruler of the country, the ruler was so pleased that he gave the inventor the right to name his prize for the invention. The man, who was very wise, asked the king this: that for the first square of the chess board, he would receive one grain of wheat (in some tellings, rice), two for the second one, four on the third one, and so forth, doubling the amount each time. The ruler, arithmetically unaware, quickly accepted the inventor's offer, even getting offended by his perceived notion that the inventor was asking for such a low price, and ordered the treasurer to count and hand over the wheat to the inventor. However, when the treasurer took more than a week to calculate the amount of wheat, the ruler asked him for a reason for his tardiness. The treasurer then gave him the result of the calculation, and explained that it would be impossible to give the inventor the reward. The ruler then, to get back at the inventor who tried to outsmart him, cut off the inventor's head to discourage such trickery.

 

[dmd7978]

That's normal. Here's a related story:

I love that story. Okay, so then, what about the ability of the software to run an unlimited number of different splinterfaces, not just the batman one. If, within the next ten years, let's say, 10,000 people create huge ones like this, with 5-700 variable/dynamic images(it only takes a few days to create, after the imagery is made)...

Will that number of possible looks it allows only be comparable to quantum probabilities? Or is it near there already? Because if just one produces that number, how can it ever be "added" to, as infinity times infinity, over and over again, doesn't make "sense", as far as my understanding of physical reality goes.

This "makes sense" to me, when talking about possible "vectors" someone could move their hand, or better yet, a game character at any given time, cause that is real-time motion possibilities, but i lose it when it is the appearance of the "desktop", when the images all have finite paths that they take.

Thanks again, Im loving this.

 

[daon2]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are asking. How is probability coming into the mix? If you want to think of it as the number of possibile images on a computer screen, the number of possible animations, of any kind, are actually finite as long as the resolution and frame-rate bounded. One could algorithmically create every single 1080p motion picture possible simply by "brute-forcing" the pixels, and it is finite (but large).

 

[dmd7978]

EDIT---SORRY ABOUT THE FULL POST, BELOW. I GOT, TOTALLY, CARRIED AWAY LAST NIGHT AND FORGOT THAT YOU WERE HELPING ME WITH THE MATH PROBLEM, NOT MY PROBLEM WITH CONVEYING SPLINTER CONCEPTS, LOL. You did your "job", and did it well, thank you. I will leave the post up, anyway, as it does explain the probability aspect. But no worries, either way. I think it is an unquantifiable measurement I was asking for, and would only confuse me more, which would, in turn, make me confuse those i must enlighten. Appreciate the help, greatly!!!!

----------------------------------------

"brute-forcing" the pixels.....I will ask what you mean by this, later....

Actually, what I mean is that, as you said, with the 700 images I have put into this ONE splinterface, the total number of possible "looks'/combinations is that very large number. But Splinter may create and run an unlimited number of splinterfaces, they only need to be created. So, if "10,000" people create their own splinterfaces, and use, roughly, the same number of "splicons" for these creations, there would be "7 million" total splicons, not just 700. And if they used the same number of pages(wallpapers), there would be 200,000 of those. As any splinterface can "instantly" be loaded into Splinter, all of the splinterfaces created and available to the user should be counted, not just the one "running" at that moment.

So wouldnt that be

200,000 x 2 to the 7 million(th?) instead of 30 x 2 to the 700(th?)...

Wouldnt that number only be comparable to numbers talked about in quantum probabilities? Like the potential position for any one or all subatomic particles in the universe at any given moment, something like that? And since any and all images within a spilnterface can, "instantly" be changed out for another image and/OR have the "splanimation"(still image opening) changed to anything else, at any time, doesnt that add more variables that take it to an even more ridiculous number? (hd video is finite, splinter is not. It is REAL-TIME still imagery in motion...on two levels. one the images appear the moment they are initiated, AND, the more important "real-time", is that they can instantly and always be altered or changed out, nothing is EVER "finite" within Splinter, it is an entirely new and "limitless" universe, its only limit being the creator's imagination. It has fundamental attributes similar and abilities similar to what one would "think" could and would occur in the quantum realm.

Sorry about long details, but i think that this information changes how you may have been/do think about what splinter is. Think "wonderland" meets "the grid". It is called spli-space. Infinitely small, in that it ONLY exists between the desktop wallpaper and EVERY OTHER window on a computer, yet infinitely large, in that "anything" can occur within it, in real-time..

This is where I have a problem. I am very comfortable with the aspects of quantum reality, as it is, by far, the only thing that can be "compared" to spli-space. BUT, because of this, I find it, increasingly, difficult to "quantify" many of splinter's abilities/combos/functions in "physical" numbers...Which is a major issue as I have to be able to communicate its abilities to human beings, who are not, by and large, going to be able to or want to try, INITIALLY, to get into quantum mechanical type concepts.

 

[daon2]

Yes that solution would be right, should a user load all of them. Though I don't know anything about quantum probabilities or how small they can be but it sounds interesting.

 

[dmd7978]

Yes that solution would be right, should a user load all of them. Though I don't know anything about quantum probabilities or how small they can be but it sounds interesting.

Hello, daon. Another one for ya, if you dont mind. . Let us change the numbers to 120 x 2 to the 3000

The last answer was a googel x googelx 1 trillion.

How many zeros would this add? Thanks very much

Splinter Runthrough
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FnLuXFGiQk&feature=related